
How Florida's electricity utilities are manipulating voters to oppose solar - OrwellianChild
https://electrek.co/2016/10/30/how-the-electricity-utilities-use-a-little-bit-of-political-jiu-jitsu-to-steal-the-sun/
======
noonespecial
Just in case it wasn't clear:

If you're in Florida and you want a solar future, vote _NO_ on Amendment 1.
It's a backhanded trick that pretends to give consumers rights that they
already have while sneaking in language making it much easier for the power
company to raise rates especially on people installing partial solar (grid
tie) systems.

Even if you're too disgusted with the whole affair to vote for which monkey
will swing from the Executive branch for the next term, it's worth going to
the polls in FL just to nix Amendment 1.

~~~
tropo
Voting YES would be safer, not that cramming random crap into the constitution
is pretty. Net metering will bankrupt the power companies, leading to a
bailout. It'll make Enron look minor. Here is why:

1\. Some people install grid-connected solar. This being Florida, they cover
100% of their average electrical usage via the solar. This causes their power
bill to go to zero, so they no longer contribute to the cost of maintaining
the power lines that they benefit from.

2\. The cost of grid maintenance is shifted to the non-solar customers. With
the rising cost of power for consumers, more people install solar. Prices for
consumers continue to rise.

3\. Eventually there are very few people actually paying for power, even
though everybody remains connected to the grid and expecting to get power at
night. The power company is forced to buy daytime power that goes unused --
they need to burn it off somehow! The few paying customers have to cover the
cost of that, plus the entire cost of the grid.

4\. At some point, non-solar people are forced to disconnect. If they can't
install solar, they will just have to move away. They can't afford to support
everybody else and the grid.

5\. There is no revenue. Costs are crazy high. The power company can not pay
for employees or fuel. They start to let stuff break and shut down. The grid-
connected solar users find that power is often unavailable during the night.

6\. The state government issues an emergency order to take control of the
power company in some way. There is a huge bailout.

~~~
OrwellianChild
This is funny because you are quoting, almost exactly, the death-spiral fear
mongering that the parent article debunks.

~~~
tropo
It was actually happening in Hawaii until the state put a stop to new
installs.

The death spiral isn't obvious at first. It can take some time to really get
going. In the short term, there will even be the occasional benefit for the
utilities, such as avoiding an upgrade. The death spiral is still there
though, even if it gets off to a slow start.

In any case, it just makes sense that:

1\. all customers should pay a fair share to support the grid, even if they
are exclusively selling power

2\. pay for solar-generated power should be according to current (this moment
right now) value, at wholesale rates, discounted due to fluctuations and the
inability of the utility to choose when they buy it

~~~
CountSessine
Completely agreed, but rooftop solar won't be economical for homeowners unless
it can continue to game the billing structure and time-shift electricity
pricing.

------
socialist_coder
I sent in my FL mail ballot a couple weeks ago and this amendment was on
there. After first skimming it, I was about to just quickly vote YES, but
something wasn't sitting right. It seemed very fishy - it was trying to
support solar, but the wording was super weird, like they were trying to trick
me. The problems they were saying it would solve just didn't seem realistic. A
quick google search revealed who was bankrolling the amendment, which
confirmed my suspicions. Fuck this thing.

I wish they had some kind of "follow the money" thing included in the ballot.
Like, no matter how many wrongly named shell companies you go through, the
actual source of the money should be right there on the ballot so voters know
who is truly driving these amendments.

Super tricky though, it won't surprise me at all if this thing passes. This is
yet another case where the average human is just not intelligent enough to
keep up with the marketing strategies of the most intelligent.

~~~
tropo
They were trying to trick you, which is shady, but that doesn't make the
result bad. Without this, we're headed to a huge bailout. In the long term,
net metering will force power companies into hopeless bankruptcy. Hawaii has
already approached this, stopped only by a state-wide moratorium on new
installs.

------
clumsysmurf
A "Follow the Money" picture worth a thousand words:

"Fossil fuel and other monopoly utility-aligned groups backing Yes on 1 for
the Sun"

[https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/energyandpolicy/pages/...](https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/energyandpolicy/pages/569/attachments/original/1461165042/Yes-
on-1-for-the-sun-Consumers-for-Smart-Solar-April-2016.jpg)

------
Agustus
There needs to be a website that says who is backing an amendment, really.
Additionally, the website should explain the issues of it and why each side is
proposing it.

I agree with the power companies in that the payment of the grid switch is
$15,000 and should be borne by the homeowner. If you are forcing your neighbor
to subsidize your solar power installation and subsequent reduction in costs
through higher costs for those without solar, when the power company installs
the switch on everyone's house they will be bankrupt. Yes, it would be nice if
the solar power could be reduced in cost, but forcing others to bear the
burden does not seem fair, especially if you are unable to make the initial
investment for solar.

~~~
toomuchtodo
There are numerous studies showing distributed rooftop solar and the net
metering that goes along with it is a benefit to utilities. Utilities simply
don't want to see their profit dry up.

------
dragthor
People are not as dumb as you think.

~~~
socialist_coder
Oh yeah? It worked for the taxi industry in Austin. They tricked people into
banning Uber and Lyft, so the taxi industry can continue to operate their
monopoly.

Look at the actual text of what is on the ballot here:

>> 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. State and local governments shall
retain their abilities to protect consumer rights and public health, safety
and welfare, and 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.

It's pretty tricky. Tell me you honestly don't think that a huge amount of
people are going to vote yes on that thing.

~~~
spc476
Disclosure: I live in Florida.

The first sentence I interpret as: The power company (mostly Florida Power and
Light, but there are some smaller utility companies that largely resell FPL,
like Lake Worth Utilities [1]) cannot restrict or prevent property owners from
installing solar power. The second sentence I interpret as: the government can
restrict or prevent property owners from installing solar power (in the same
way it restricts homeowners with building permits and building codes), but
subsidies for solar power will be ended.

Not having followed the story [2] I'm inclined to vote "yes" on this (why
should I pay for my neighbor's solar installation?) and don't see what's so
bad about it. At some point, if solar is going to compete with traditional
power sources, it will have to do so on its own terms without subsidies [3].

What do you see that's so insidious in the amendment?

[1] I had them when I lived in Lake Worth. Power cost twice as much, and it
took forever to restore power after a hurricane. I refer to it as Lake
Worthless Power.

[2] I've stopped listening to the news. It's horrible fear mongering on all
sides (a pox on the 24-hour news cycle!). If something important happens, it
will filter into my view. My stress levels have dropped dramatically.

[3] Much like electric cars. One subsidy they get is avoiding the gas tax,
which goes towards maintenance of roads (on the theory that those who use more
gas use more of the roads, and it's generally taxed at the geographical
location of use). At some point, that _has_ to change.

~~~
OrwellianChild
I strongly recommend you read the article linked here, as it explains the
false equivalency of the bill. Net-metered solar reduces peak usage, reducing
costs for utilities. The article has no less than 9 citations proving the
point - your bill should go _down_ as people transition to on-site solar.

This bill is about entrenched utilities not wanting to compete - not about
solar subsidies.

Also, I believe this reasonable confusion answers @dragthor's question... :-)

~~~
spc476
The article was a mess to read, and very hard to find the _actual_ reason for
rejecting the amendment. The two best reasons I've seen for rejecting this
amendment are:

1) it already duplicates existing law and protections, so no real reason to
have this;

2) net-metering will go away.

I can see the reasoning for 1 and it's debatable if it's good enough to vote
"no." I'll vote "present" on this one.

For 2, I think it really comes down to what is considered a "subsidy." In my
mind, it's the installation subsidy---that is, it costs (I'm making this up as
I haven't actually researched this) $20,000 to do a solar installation for a
home, yet "the government" will rebate $15,000 of it (through tax breaks or an
outright check---does it matter how it's done?). I don't see "net metering" as
a subsidy though---you are generating a product (in the form of excess
electricity) and are selling it to the power company. But having read the
"fabulous" article, I just see "this will end net-metering!" without any
proof.

On the power company's side, running a grid is _hard._ They don't just run
"all the generators" at 100% all the time because doing so would harm the
transmission equipment; excess load is excess heat and over time damages the
equipment, so the power companies try very hard to keep the generation
matching the load (generally they run a bit high to cover demand spikes but
not so high as to do damage to the equipment---it's a fine line). Net metering
makes this a bit harder to manage. Traditional sources are more consistent in
output and can be controlled better than solar, which is dependent upon too
many different conditions over the day [1].

If there's proof that "net-metering" is considered a "subsidy" by the
proponents (or the power companies) and then, maybe, I'd vote "no." But the
current "net-metering is going away!" fear mongering is not helping here.

[1] Especially here in Florida. It can be party cloudy and _still_ raining. It
can be clear, then two hours later overcast with a torrential downpour, then
partly cloudy an hour later. You're a power company that needs to maintain
power generation to within 5% of load, now do that with unpredictable power
supply.

~~~
OrwellianChild
I agree that this is a huge mess, and I appreciate you looking into it
further!

I think the Sun Sentinel editorial might do a better job of summarizing what's
going on [1]. Net metering was put in place in 2008, but this Amendment 1
would change the wording of the constitution, opening the possibility for a
challenge to the 2008 law on grounds it conflicts with the phrasing in the
amendment.

To the question of whether net-metering is a de-facto subsidy... Many states,
including Vermont [2], Nevada [3], Mississippi [4], Minnesota [5], and Maine
[6], have independently found that net-metering provides a _benefit to all
ratepayers_.

I hope this helps clarify your questions - please consider voting no on
Amendment 1 and throwing your support behind Floridians for Solar Choice, who
are trying to legalize solar leasing arrangements like the ones sold by Solar
City/Tesla. [7]

[1] [http://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/editorials/fl-
editorial-...](http://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/editorials/fl-editorial-
solar-scam-20161028-story.html)

[2]
[http://www.leg.state.vt.us/reports/2013ExternalReports/28558...](http://www.leg.state.vt.us/reports/2013ExternalReports/285580.pdf)

[3]
[http://puc.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/pucnvgov/Content/About/Media...](http://puc.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/pucnvgov/Content/About/Media_Outreach/Announcements/Announcements/E3%20PUCN%20NEM%20Report%202014.pdf?pdf=Net-
Metering-Study)

[4] [http://www.synapse-
energy.com/sites/default/files/Net%20Mete...](http://www.synapse-
energy.com/sites/default/files/Net%20Metering%20in%20Mississippi.pdf)

[5] [http://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/MN-Value-of-
Solar...](http://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/MN-Value-of-Solar-from-
ILSR.pdf)

[6] [http://www.nrcm.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/03/MPUCValueofSo...](http://www.nrcm.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/03/MPUCValueofSolarReport.pdf)

[7] [http://www.flsolarchoice.org/](http://www.flsolarchoice.org/)

~~~
spc476
Yeah, I wasn't really swayed by that Sun Sentinel article. I can understand
why power companies hate net metering---it complicates their lives
([https://web.archive.org/web/20051223090406/http://www.denbes...](https://web.archive.org/web/20051223090406/http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/08/Quicknon-
fixes.shtml) [1]) and past that, it's jut whining that it'll take even long to
recoup installation costs of solar panels. Solar cells still either need to be
1) cheaper or 2) last longer.

I haven't read up on the Tesla roof tiles, but I can only see that being
viable (at least here in Florida) if they at least break even over, say,
thirty years (outer range of roof replacement) with the occasional hurricane
(say, one every five years or so). And how do you clean the things? We had our
roof washed several months ago, but that's because my SO thought the roof just
looked unsightly [2]. But having to wash the roof (say, yearly just to keep up
the efficiency) will definitely cut into the ROI of the system.

They might very well work out financially in Arizona and New Mexico though
(more sun, less rain and a simple brushing off of any sand might suffice).

[1] Yes, it's a decade old, but it goes into details about power generation I
don't think many people realize. Running a power grid is _not_ easy and it's
all too easy to screw up.

[2] Tile roof, which tends to hold up a bit better under hurricanes.

