Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Friday November 18 2016, @03:46PM   Printer-friendly
from the power-of-social-media dept.

Floridians for Solar Choice reports

[November 8,] Florida voters rejected Amendment 1--the utility-backed proposal that sought to limit the growth of customer-owned solar power in the Sunshine State.

In a true David and Goliath battle, a diverse grassroots coalition of more than 200 organizations, solar companies, elected officials, and thousands of concerned citizens worked to defeat the deceptive utility-backed amendment. Amendment 1 opponents feel that a significant percentage of the "yes" voters felt they were tricked once they understood the true nature of the ballot measure. Constitutional amendments in Florida require 60 percent support to pass.

The millions of dollars in slick ad buys and glossy mailers did not win the day as opponents of Amendment 1 successfully harnessed social and earned media to educate Floridians about the true intent of this deceptive proposal while tapping a vast network of organizations, solar businesses and supporters who remain committed to growing--not restricting--Florida's solar industry.

[...] "In all my years of public service, I had never seen such a thinly-veiled attempt to intentionally mislead Florida voters" [...] said Mike Fasano (R), a former state Senator and current tax collector of Pasco County Tax.

Previously, PhilSalkie pointed out how easy it was to be confused by the competing proposals and other Soylentils weighed in on the disgusting state of electric infrastructure in Florida.
Florida Voters [Overwhelmingly] Approve Solar Energy Tax Break Constitutional Amendment


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Arik on Friday November 18 2016, @05:56PM

    by Arik (4543) on Friday November 18 2016, @05:56PM (#428970) Journal
    It was eminently reasonable. Imagine if everyone put in enough solar to cover their needs and trickle back into the grid every day. The electric company is obligated to pay top dollar on that trickle-back, which they really don't have any use for. They are also obligated to maintain the grid, and sufficient power generation to cover all the night-time needs of their customers. If night time usage is relatively low they could be obligated to do all this while billing $0 or even less. And even without everyone doing it, what is the effect when a small percentage do it? The price of electricity goes up on everyone else in order to give those few a special deal. A sweetheart deal for the solar industry and their generally affluent customers, *paid for on the back of a public utility.* Some people might think that's inappropriate, particularly so considering it's most strongly supported by the party that claims to be for the little man and against welfare for the wealthy.
    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @06:24PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @06:24PM (#428990)

    That is quite a narrative you just created. There are plenty of non-wealthy folks who install solar, it often makes financial sense to reduce utility bills. As for the energy companies, sure it can lead to a real problem if they don't earn enough to maintain the system.

    However, I personally don't want the financials of energy companies to come before renewable energy. That would be trading the future well being of the world for the profit margin of a corporation, and I think its about time we said enough of that.

    Worst case, energy company goes bankrupt and all the techs get government jobs maintaining the grid. Win win for me, even with "those lazy unions" the people would probably lose less money.

  • (Score: 3, Touché) by Whoever on Friday November 18 2016, @09:39PM

    by Whoever (4524) on Friday November 18 2016, @09:39PM (#429128) Journal

    So, basically, you are concerned about a theoretical situation in which there is so much residential solar electricity production that the utilities don't need to provide any power while the sun is shining?

    Wow, just wow. Do you realize how unlikely this is to happen? This measure would have made every residential solar installation uneconomical.

    Your idea is to make it uneconomic to add any more residential solar installations now in order to avoid a theoretical problem that is very, very distant?