
Why It’s So Hard to Get Solar in Florida - jseliger
https://www.wired.com/2016/10/florida-sunshine-state-hard-get-solar-energy
======
noonespecial
Until very recently, installing a solar system came with a great big helping
of extra taxes!

Thankfully that was just fixed by a landslide.

[http://miami.cbslocal.com/2016/08/30/amendment-4-would-
make-...](http://miami.cbslocal.com/2016/08/30/amendment-4-would-make-solar-
cheaper-for-property-owners-2/)

But all is still not well. Our state government seems determined to protect us
from "big solar". If only that were truly a problem! If you live in Florida,
make sure to go vote even if you can't stomach either of our partisan
candidates for president, if nothing more than to support solar power in
Florida.

Its pretty embarrassing for the "sunshine State" to get its ass kicked in
solar power by New Jersey.

~~~
Buge
Are you advocating that people vote yes or no? Because the article doesn't
really say which would be better for solar.

~~~
noonespecial
See the comment by dtnewman below. Sorry to be vague, I had that in mind.
Amendment 4 was an important yes to kill the extraneous taxes on solar
systems. The upcoming vote on 1 is a muddled mess that should be voted against
until something reasonable can be introduced.

------
dtnewman
The proposal (as it will be written on the Florida ballot) starts off:

> This amendment establishes a right under Florida's constitution for
> consumers to own or lease solar equipment installed on their property to
> generate electricity for their own use.

I wish that the article would have talked a bit more about how misleading this
sentence is. It makes it sound like Floridians are gaining the ability the own
or lease solar panels, when in fact we (I'm a new Floridian) _already have
that right_! It is just a statutory right, not a constitutional one. But
reading this, a voter who doesn't know better might think that this is some
new right that Floridians didn't previously have.

It seems like this bill has a pretty broad list of opponents. How often do you
see opponents such as the Republican Liberty Caucus of Florida, the
Libertarian Party of Florida, Sierra Club and the Green Party of Florida all
on the same side of an issue?

So with conservatives, liberals and libertarians against this amendment, it
seems like the only real supporters are the power utilities who had to fight
before the state supreme court to get the misleading wording accepted. But
given the misleading wording, I'm wording that this just might get passed.

More about this here:
[https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Solar_Energy_Subsidies_and_P...](https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Solar_Energy_Subsidies_and_Personal_Solar_Use,_Amendment_1_\(2016\)#cite_ref-
quotedisclaimer_3-0)

~~~
noonespecial
The big problem with it is this:

 _" to ensure that consumers who do not choose to install solar are not
required to subsidize the costs of backup power and electric grid access to
those who do."_

This is essentially an open door that can later be slammed shut in the faces
of solar installations that are leased at a discount to the homeowner on the
fact that excess power can be sold back to the grid (net metering). It could
also be taken so far as to allow power companies to charge extra fees to
individual solar users for not using "enough" power to pay their "share" of
the distribution system costs (utility poles etc).

I wish there was a way to vote against this _and_ let them know exactly why.

Its a nearly perfect example of a classic political ploy: Enshrine a common
sense right that everyone already defacto has (and would be crazy to vote
against) in law, but slip in some weasel words that nullify that right in
practice.

~~~
mycall
> a classic political ploy

Letting corporate special interest groups write almost all of the legislation
is the key problem here.

------
slyall
I've seen similar stories in the past, the problem appears to be that in many
areas the bill was 100% linked to actual usage and didn't reflect the costs of
the connection and infrastructure.

In New Zealand the domestic electricity bill is broken up into a fixed daily
charge plus a variable charge. According to this site only around 30% of the
bill goes towards generation so it is a bit more closely matching the actual
costs of the provider.

[https://www.ea.govt.nz/consumers/my-electricity-
bill/](https://www.ea.govt.nz/consumers/my-electricity-bill/)

------
magthor
In my view Florida would be better served by deregulating their electricity
markets (as 16 other states/territories have done) and allow 3rd party
suppliers to compete for business. Then consumers who want solar (or other
forms of green power) can buy it directly without having to put panels on
their roof that will obsolete in a few years.

------
tracker1
I think if they added a provision for a fixed fee that needs state
congressional approval to change would at least clear things up. In the end,
at least here in AZ, roughly half the electric bill is separated to "delivery"
fees, which are supposed to cover infrastructure and maintenance. If those
were a fixed fee, then it'd be easier to calculate the advantage or not of
solar.

Another risk in Florida, is the solar panels are effectively wind sails in a
hurricane, and raise the risk of property damage, which is another thing that
may be offsetting costs in terms of raised property insurance.

I'm actually more in favor of wind farming than solar currently. The costs to
create the panels have other environmental impact beyond the displacement of
other resources for fuel used in electricity creation.

~~~
jadei
I had solar pool panels that did fine through hurricane Mathew in west palm
beach. They are pvc and plastic I think. I was worried about them flying but
they must have been engineered right as far as roof connections (plus the
winds remained mostly tropical strength with a few hurricane gusts.)

~~~
sukilot
Yeah you get very little hurricane damage if you built outside of the area the
hurricane hits. But what if you don't?

------
vamur
Retail solar power is not viable currently. Cheapest reputable panel on
aliexpress is about $1.2K for 1KW. Lead-acid on Amazon is about $500 per 1KWH
(not counting shipping). Assuming backup of 30KWH it would require about
$16.2K without inverters, cables, installation or shipping. And with these it
can be 20-30K+.

So it is not surprising that retail solar is not viable without subsidies.
Which are in essence wealth transfer from the poor to richer early adopters.
On top of that it is a headache for grid operators who have to account for
unpredictable inputs from retail solar power users.

Instead of the overly expensive retail solar power it would be better if
subsidies went to the far cheaper solar powered ACs, solar panel water
heaters, urban and outdoor lightning.

~~~
pjc50
Storage is not required for retail solar, just grid-tie. All the non-carbon
systems require subsidy.

The solar subsidy has been _hugely_ effective at reducing prices.

~~~
sukilot
_reducing_ prices, or _shifting_ prices to the rest of the population,
regardless of energy use?

~~~
pjc50
Reducing the price of solar for future installations.

Yes, the overall cost of energy would be less with an all-fossil system, but
that's no longer acceptable.

------
gjolund
This article does a terrible job highlighting what you can do about this.

Vote no on prop 1 in November.

------
tomjen3
Why should non Solar users subsidise the grid for those who can install solar
panels in sufficient quantities to matter? This probably means people who owns
houses gets a subsidy from those who live in apartments, who are typically
poorer.

~~~
glenndebacker
Here in Belgium they did make that mistake. They issued green power
certificates so people installing solar panels could receive some money.

After a while it became pricey and they needed to halt the program. Still they
were obligated to pay those certificates to those who registered under that
program. The consequence is that they needed to raise other energy taxes and a
lot of families who are struggling are being hit extra hard.

The sickening part of the whole story is that we have big wealthy industrial
families who have build complete solar farms under that program and pure for
the certificates. Some are receiving 10 millions euro a year (for 20 years)
and paid for a part by the poor.

~~~
pjc50
What about the bigger, wealthier industrial families who have built coal mines
and got subsidies for them too?

[http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-koch-coal-
idUSL2N14W1JJ20...](http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-koch-coal-
idUSL2N14W1JJ20160112)

