SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the stick-it-where-the-sun-don't-shine dept.
CleanTechnica has written a series of articles about the deceptive wording on Florida's Amendment 1, which is meant to slow the Sunshine State's rooftop solar growth and even penalize it — despite language that initially makes it look like a pro-solar amendment. A new press release from the US Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) reveals that Florida voters are waking up to the deception, but that the big utilities are playing hardball now to keep it up, pumping millions of dollars more into misleading ads before election day.
Fortunately, all of the press (and Elon Musk tweeting) about Amendment 1 have made many voters aware that it is a proposal to benefit utility monopolies like Florida Power & Light, not the people of Florida. But Florida's utilities aren't willing to give up. In fact, they are showing how valuable they consider this anti-solar legislation to be, pouring $3.5 million more into misleading advertisements in the closing days before all ballots are cast. SEIA writes:
"Polls conducted this past week indicate a sharp momentum shift on the anti-solar Amendment 1 ballot initiative in Florida. As public backlash mounts, the electric utility interests funding the deceptively worded amendment have doubled down, reportedly spending another $3.5 million to continue to deceive Floridians."
Lying at such low elevation, Floridians should have particular interest in not contributing to the higher global mean temperatures that drive higher sea levels.
(Score: 5, Informative) by rondon on Tuesday November 08 2016, @02:00PM
Bradley,
That isn't the deceptive part of the amendment, in my opinion. The deceptive part is that it makes it illegal, per the state constitution, to purchase power from anyone other than the utilities. So the current practice (not in Florida, but in other states) of leasing roof space and then selling solar power back to the homeowner is illegal per this amendment, but is never stated as such in the ballot language.
It is highly deceptive, and I find it personally disgusting when people go to such great lengths to lie. If I believed in Hell, I would hope that those liars would rot there for eternity.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by shipofgold on Tuesday November 08 2016, @03:16PM
Actually Bradley is 100% correct.
The power companies are trying to eliminate the practice that currently, anybody with a rooftop solar installation, has the right to have their electric meter run backwards when the Electricity being generated by the Solar panels is greater than that currently in use by the homeowner. This is commonly called NetMetering.
At night your electric meter runs forward....during a nice sunny day, it starts running backwards as you generate more electricity than you use and in theory feed that electricity back into the grid.
The power companies see this practice as requiring them to "pay retail rates" for electricity while they have the ability to generate similar amounts at wholesale rates....their argument is that they should not be required to pay retail rates, which I sort of agree with.
If they sell 1000Kwh of Electricity at 13cents/Kwh but it only cost them 3-5 cents/Kwh to generate they make a profit of 8-10 cents/Kwh. But if a homeowner who would normally buy that electricity and pay the full $130 now has a roof top solar installation that now generates 1500Kwh per month, in theory the Power company now needs to send a check for $65 for the purchase of 500Kwh of electricity. At wholesale rates, that same 500Kwh would cost them only $15-25 and consequently the fact that a homeowner has a Solar Installation is in effect costing the Power company up to $50 per month. This is what the power companies are calling a subsidy because they need to recover that cost from all Homeowners connected to the grid (including those without Solar power).
I can see their point...although I don't feel sorry for them. Furthermore they have infrastructure that needs maintenance (poles, wires, substations) that is normally covered by the per Kwh cost that a homeowner doesn't have.
What would probably be fairer is to setup a separate electric marketplace where any generator of electricity can sell into and any purchaser of electricity can buy from. Transport of that electricity would be separate.
Of course this would probably kill rooftop solar until the prices of the panels drop significantly. I ran numbers for my home and the upfront expense doesn't come close to generating any long term savings without NetMetering.
All that being said the Amendment is deceptive. It has things like "adding a section in the state constitution giving residents of Florida the right to own or lease solar energy equipment for personal use". Florida State Law already provides the right to own solar equipment and adding that right to the state constitution is pure deception. The only right that Floridians may get from that statement is the ability to "lease" solar equipment....currently I believe that homeowners must own their own equipment which is something the Power companies pushed through years ago. Perhaps they are conceding that point trying to get NetMetering tossed.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday November 08 2016, @07:56PM
Houses with solar panels should sell their production at spot prices, because meters are now good enough to figure that out.
Actually, they should get a small bonus over spot, because there are virtually no transport losses when all you do is feed your neighbor.
The utilities would be happy, and it would actually be a fair marketplace.
If the government wants to reward people for investing in solar panels (help the ROI since you don't sell at retail prices), they can issue green/CO2/less-boots-int-the-middle-east credits. They'll get it back in higher property taxes anyway.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday November 08 2016, @09:28PM
The power companies are trying to eliminate the practice that currently, anybody with a rooftop solar installation, has the right to have their electric meter run backwards when the Electricity being generated by the Solar panels is greater than that currently in use by the homeowner. This is commonly called NetMetering.
At night your electric meter runs forward....during a nice sunny day, it starts running backwards as you generate more electricity than you use and in theory feed that electricity back into the grid.
The power companies see this practice as requiring them to "pay retail rates" for electricity while they have the ability to generate similar amounts at wholesale rates....their argument is that they should not be required to pay retail rates, which I sort of agree with.
This may all be true, but in Florida it is difficult, if not impossible, to legally disconnect from the grid. So if one wanted to set up on their own, or with a few neighbors, you would find the authorities banging down your door. FPL and Duke Energy want their cake, and to eat yours as well.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08 2016, @07:29PM
The deception is gross, but the goal is good.
This is about SolarCity's scam. SolarCity is welcome to **sell** and/or **install** panels in Florida. Running their scam isn't OK.
People sign up for SolarCity, then try to sell their house. If SolarCity doesn't love the new buyer, they say "no" and force the seller to pay a huge amount to buy or remove the panels. Basic consumer protection concepts make this not OK.
SolarCity is currently unable to run their scam in Florida. This amendment would lock that in, preventing SolarCity from bribing the legislature to make the scam legal.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Wednesday November 09 2016, @11:08PM
Bullshit.
If this were about a scam, then you'd fix it by making the scam illegal - say denying the solar companies any "bail out" option so long as the new owners abide by the term of the contract. Then the plan would become much less profitable and Solar City would have little interest in playing.
That way in a few years when solar becomes cheap enough to warrant the risk, solar companies can step up and offer plans that reflect the new, more profitable for everyone reality. Rather than banning the entire business model outright.