SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the what-sunny-state-will-be-next dept.
The Center for American Progress reports
Solar power could soon be flourishing [in] the Sunshine State. [On October 22,] the Florida Supreme Court approved [PDF] an initiative for the 2016 ballot that would allow Floridians to vote to reduce the state's restrictions on rooftop solar power.
Although solar is growing exponentially nationwide, it has not thrived in Florida. Florida is one of a handful of states that prohibit residents from purchasing electricity from a source other than an electric utility. This has locked out third-party solar rooftop companies, such as SolarCity and SunRun, which install rooftop solar panels on a customer's property at no cost and sell solar-generated power to that customer at a reduced electric rate.
As ThinkProgress previously reported, a coalition of solar advocates called Floridians for Solar Choice has been leading the effort to change this policy by pursuing a ballot initiative to permit third-party financing for rooftop solar by private companies. To get the initiative on the ballot, Florida required the coalition to first collect 68,314 voter signatures and then have the initiative language approved by the state Supreme Court.
On [October 22], the ballot initiative cleared this major hurdle when the Florida Supreme Court approved the "Solar Choice Amendment" for the November 2016 ballot. Advocates now have to collect the requisite 683,149 signatures to ensure the initiative goes on the ballot. It will then have to pass with 60 percent of the vote in 2016.
[...] In 2008, the Florida [Public Service Commission--the state body responsible for regulating electricity--]released a report saying that rooftop solar alone had the potential to generate nearly 100 times [the current 530 MW derived from renewables in Florida]. [PDF]
Meanwhile, "public servant" Pam Bondi, Florida's Attorney General, continues to fight on multiple fronts to block renewables.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tftp on Saturday October 24 2015, @04:30PM
In two, five, or ten years, the panels are paid off, and I begin to enjoy free electricity!!
It's nowhere that good. Typically solar panels are paid off after 10-20 years. Two or five years are unheard of. Chances are that you will either sell the house by then, or they fail. The inverter can easily fail, being a complicated piece of power electronics, and then you are set back by another 5 years. You are replacing the "pay as you go" plan of the utility company with an investment up front and a very low ROI. You might be better off just investing the $50K and using the income to pay for power :-)
In this aspect it is not that insane to just allow a 3rd company to use space on your property that you aren't using, and derive some small profit from it. Most of the profit will go to the company... but they paid for the PV, and you only rent them an otherwise worthless space.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Saturday October 24 2015, @07:49PM
You are doing the usual comparison of apples to oranges.
On average, you can expect to 'profit' similarly to the third party. They aren't doing this for a 5% yearly ROI, particularly with power prices increasing.
As for selling the house, it's not like "oh, you installed it, now it's worth 40% less".
Like anything, there is some risk that the investment doesn't work out. But if it were THAT likely to happen, the third party wouldn't do it either, because, duh, they also have the same risk.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Saturday October 24 2015, @08:38PM
On average, you can expect to 'profit' similarly to the third party. They aren't doing this for a 5% yearly ROI, particularly with power prices increasing.
They have a business model that is different from one of the homeowner. Note that at least in CA you cannot produce extra power, feed it into the grid, and expect to get anything but a small bag of peanuts in the end of the year. Generator facilities are paid just a couple cents per kWh, whereas the consumer pays anywhere from 11 to 30 cents per kWh, not counting the grid connection fees and such, that are a static overhead.
Their business model involves selling the generated energy to you, the homeowner. This deal bypasses the grid and goes around the "generator-consumer" arrangements. You'd get the same deal if you buy and install your own PV, of course. But there are differences between you and them, and those are important ones. For example:
I'm sure there are many more. For example, we all know about the "mail-in refunds" that are so popular in stores. You pay more today, and a couple months later you get a refund check. One would think where is the profit? Is it really that valuable to hold someone's $20 for 2 months, and handle all this paper, and pay for checks and stamps? Well, the business *is* profitable. I, personally, cannot tell why that is exactly. I only know that it's not dead, no matter how I wish it to be true.
Similarly, I never signed any deals with such solar companies. I do have my own PV panels, and I paid for their installation; so I know how that model works. Perhaps someone who entertained the idea of signing up with these guy can tell what is good or bad about their offer. I am sure that there are small details in the contract that force the homeowner to consume a certain amount of power per month - otherwise the company becomes a generator and gets nothing. Here is one article [scientificamerican.com]. It says, in part:
When Pegler explained the zero-dollar option, we Mussers looked at one another in surprise. It sounded like a real letdown. In return for letting SunRun install and maintain the array, my brother and sister-in-law would save 10% on their electric bill. Ten percent? That's it? To be more precise, they'd commit to buying all the expected array production at a rate of 16.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, versus the utility rate of about 18.5 cents. As my brother later confessed to me, "It's not really that exciting."
The article also mentions government subsidies that the company keeps - and this may even allow it to install the PV for free, or for a very low cost, if it does not need to hire a specialized contractor that wants their own share of the pie. In any case, even if your own PV system will only pay for itself in 10 years, the system that you allow to be installed on your roof will never pay for itself - you will be paying for the power for 20 years (a typical figure, as it seems,) and then you will be given an option to buy the system for whatever price the company picks!
But for most people it's OK anyhow. The homeowner will save a few cents per kWh, and he doesn't really care about what's on his roof, as long as it doesn't leak. The solar company pockets all the government subsidies, and it receives fees for the generated power that do not go anymore to the utility. The key to success here is the access to the cheapest PV panels, inverters, and installation labor that one can find. If they can do it... it's not one of the worst deals known to man.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Saturday October 24 2015, @08:46PM
And when you try to sell your house, you find the solar company filed a lean against it, and you have to pay off the full installation costs, or pay a removal fee.
Contracts are not necessarily transferable.
The more you read about this scheme, the more you begin to think Florida may have been right to ban it.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 24 2015, @07:59PM
In two, five, or ten years, the panels are paid off, and I begin to enjoy free electricity!!
It's nowhere that good. Typically solar panels are paid off after 10-20 years. Two or five years are unheard of. Chances are that you will either sell the house by then, or they fail. The inverter can easily fail, being a complicated piece of power electronics, and then you are set back by another 5 years.
And then there is lightening, hail, bears on the roof, frisbee damage, photon redirection, trolls on the internet, and power company shills to be considered. Solar power is just too dangerous and risky. And what will you do with the left-over waste? Yucca Mountain hasn't been built, and there is no long-term solution to solar power waste storage.