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: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08 2016, @12:12PM
Maybe the problem isn't that "florida power and light" doesn't like paris or
that they own real estate that might turn into valuable beach front property if the ocean decides to rise.
rather, maybe they said to the bank that people will always need electricity (true) and that historically ever more electricity is needed
and thus talked the bank into giving them huge loans which carefully calculate allowed them to leverage the income to maybe pay off the interest on the (huge?) loans?
if, however people were now allowed to make the rising curve of "we (florida power and light) can produce (and sell) more electricity forever more" to decline
then this would dent their careful leverage calculations and maybe make them miss the next interest payment to the bank?
the boat "MS Florida power and light" has a hole and people want to make it even bigger? Sad, maybe, but the sun was shining even before "MS florida power and light" existed ...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08 2016, @05:04PM
Ya well power companies can go fuck themselves. Well, the execs and such anyway, let's get the actual workers some donuts!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08 2016, @01:08PM
I'm sure Solar City has a bunch of loans that will lose money without feed in subsidies.
(Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Tuesday November 08 2016, @01:09PM
This is an example of the dishonest utility companies trying to protect their bottom lines, aided and abetted by the kleptocracy in Tallahassee, at the expense of we Floridians.
VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 1
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 4, Informative) by bradley13 on Tuesday November 08 2016, @01:28PM
Let me play devil's advocate here: There is a dark side to solar energy.
With traditional generation methods, the energy company controls the production, and it is nice an predictable. With solar, it becomes unpredictable. Clouds move in for an hour or two, energy supply drops through the floor. To avoid a brown-out, you have to spin up replacement capacity fast. AFAIK, about the only kind of plant that can react quickly enough is natural gas, already running on standby. So, to support solar generation, you have to build new power plants. Plants that you need only sporadically; that therefore generate relatively little revenue of their own.
The controversial bit of Florida Amendment 1 is the part that states: "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 exactly the point: Large-scale solar requires large-scale backup. Just exactly who should pay the cost of that backup capacity, if not the solar owners?
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(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.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Whoever on Tuesday November 08 2016, @03:13PM
The thing is that today, we have these things called "electricity grids" and, while weather may be unpredictable on a local level, at the level of the grid, it is quite predicable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08 2016, @07:07PM
You can't just shove power in at one location and extract it at another with 100% efficiency. Even if you could, the capacity isn't there.
Enron took advantage of this. They would ship power through the grid for the sole purpose of occupying capacity, forcing cities to buy from expensive near-by generators.
Florida doesn't need their own Enron. Power generation is inescapably tied to location. The problems caused by solar are real. Tossing aside the efficiency issue, just getting things to work reliably with lots of solar is a super-expensive upgrade.
(Score: 1) by Gault.Drakkor on Tuesday November 08 2016, @08:57PM
Well as you state: "electricity grids": plural.
They are too small and localized for the most part for purpose of averaging. It would be cool if we had a single large grid across Namerica that could be used to distribute cities worth of power(1-10 GW). A grid that size could reduce storage costs considerably. However a continental sized grid is not cheap.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Wednesday November 09 2016, @05:48AM
Yeah, three grids across the USA, so many and so small.
(Score: 1) by gordo on Tuesday November 08 2016, @11:07PM
Well first of all, I think if you consider that solar capacity would be additive to existing power generation, then all else being equal, adding solar capacity (as uneven as it might be) does not *require* new power generation to be built per se. Second, when solar power generation is spread over a large enough service area like say Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, individual clouds and weather patterns do not crash solar production fast enough that peaker plants couldn't be placed online in time to maintain smooth power availability. Third, if you're really concerned about providing reliable power when the sun don't shine or the wind don't blow, rather than building new fossil fuel peaker plants, utilities should build out storage capacity instead (as is being done in many jurisdictions.)
(Score: 5, Interesting) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday November 08 2016, @01:37PM
The dinosaurs are at it again. Reminds me of the Music industry when napster rolled around.
If they weren't completely brain dead, they realize that the typical home solar array wont greatly impact their bottom lines in the long run. In fact, it will help bolster it. How? There is a lot of electrical infrastructure in the US which needs to be upgraded. If we add electric cars to that already burdened grid, capacity problems will arise. Solar helps distribute the load for them which will relax some of the burden on the grid allowing them to save money by deferring upgrades. It's a long term win for them as electric cars will heavily drive up the demand for electricity. The average 10kW solar array can't charge a Tesla 85KWh battery unless there are some seriously ideal conditions. So the power company will still continue to sell plenty of power.
Goes to show you how short sighted American businesses are. Here we keep talking about the electric car boom which is just around the corner, a great opportunity for these fucks and all they can worry about if if someone produces a little bit of power from the sun. Relax grass fuckers, it's just a short term drop in profits.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by isostatic on Tuesday November 08 2016, @02:17PM
I don't get this love of direct democracy. Wading through dozens of potential votes, to fully understand the issues, and make an informed choice, is a major workload. That's why I elect politicians to do this for me, and hold them to account when it comes to electing (or not) them again.
By devolving the decision to the uninformed masses is not going to get an informed decision. The only benefit is if your political system is so corrupt that your representatives are easier to coerce than the general population, but the solution there is to fix your political system, as those are where the far-reaching policies are decided.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by art guerrilla on Tuesday November 08 2016, @03:02PM
well, you are wrong on a number of levels, but lets just unwrap a few...
BECAUSE OF corrupted pols, we (meaning we the people, not we the korporatocracy) have -for all practical purposes- been locked out of 'normal' means of ballot initiatives to enact laws we the people want, but since they are actually to OUR benefit, 'our' representatives have zero interest in going to bat for them...
sooooo, that basically leaves us lowly citizens of la florida only one practical option: constitutional amendments...
not the best mechanism for a number of reasons, but about the only means we citizens have of doing an end run around 'our' reps...
(which is the nub of the problrm: politicians DO NOT represent the interests of the poor 99%, but the interests of the monied classes whose 'free speech' is infinitely louder than the 99%...)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08 2016, @05:56PM
Mob rule is less appealing than voting out the politicians in the first place. The 99% have the true voting power, but 75% of that 99% can't be bothered to actually cast a ballot one way or the other. Politicians focus on the people who vote. It doesn't make sense to do otherwise?
Being a citizen, a good true citizen, is not easy work. It isn't terribly hard work, but it does involve some level of effort. The sad fact is that the majority of voting-eligible people don't want to put in the effort. Take the 18-30 yo demographic; they are the most opinionated, as young people are with a very black-and-white view of the world, and outspoken, but they can't be bothered to actually go out and cast their ballot! It is far easier to not vote and whine about it than it is to actually go out and do vote. And all that nihilistic bullshit about how my vote doesn't matter is all bullshit; it really does matter, but only if you actually do vote. Even if you don't like who your representative is, if he's worried that you can tip the scales to knock him out of office, he'll listen to you.
This isn't just a US thing. Around the world, the only people who vote in large numbers percentage-wise are those from very small countries, or those who only recently were given (or restored) the privilege to vote. For the rest of the world, you can count on the minority deciding for the majority.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday November 08 2016, @08:01PM
That isn't something new: http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics [electproject.org]
Nearly the same turnout for 18-30 year-olds since the 1970's.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kanweg on Tuesday November 08 2016, @06:03PM
That you have bad representation is also caused by making irrelevant factors significant in elections. Yes, i mean religion/creationism. A politician won't get voted for unless he's too stupid to understand evolution or if he's smart enough willing to lie to get the job. If you want better representation, fix the problem at the root and educate your fellow countrymen.
Bert
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday November 08 2016, @03:31PM
So we are supposed to be all outraged when one huge industry that is in bed with the government does PR to push it's position against another huge industry that is in bed with the government?
In a situation like that, EVERY ad and 'news' article is assured to be propaganda. The article above is an example.
The incumbent power company has been in bed with the State government for generations, carefully tending their monopoly. They have also been delivering on their end of the bargain though, you flip the switch and the light goes on with a reliability rate that is the envy of the world at prices very competitive with the rest of the world. This cozy arrangement has allowed them to borrow huge amounts of money on very favorable interest rates to build and maintain the existing grid and generating capacity.
The upstart is mostly in bed with the FedGov vs the State, and seeks a monopoly in the form of subsidies to sell solar at far below market rates to drive in a huge installed base and displace the incumbent long before the tech is actually ready so they will be the entrenched monopoly in the future.
Note that green doesn't really enter into it, rooftop solar is currently so inefficient it is only green PR.
So people are supposed to pick which of these deeply entrenched players to support. It is actually fairly easy though. Since the solar is deeply subsidized it is only a winning move to support it if you A) intend to install it yourself and B) are reasonably certain you will be in the minority. You can't win if everybody does it because you will then be paying more in taxes than the subsidy. You should oppose in all other cases. The only path to victory is a lie, which is the Progressive specialty so has a fair chance, to convince a majority they can be one of the minority who can win.
The winning move for everyone of course is to slowly deregulate the energy industry and minimize the monopoly. Every single time you see a distortion in the market you should look for where the government is meddling and fix that. The grid is probably a natural monopoly and might not be suited to making entirely private. But everything else can and should be, then allowed to compete in a free and fair market. When solar or some other alt energy can compete it should. Period.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday November 08 2016, @04:13PM
The sorts of idiots who have taken the Republican party down this road of denial of basic science and fact would also be fools about failing to understand that cheating is weak. It's like trying to win a chess game by snatching an opposing piece off the board when your opponent's back is turned. If that actually works--and it won't against all but the very weakest players, you'll gain a reputation you didn't earn and in which you'll have to resort to more cheating, endless cheating, to maintain.
The likes of Trump not only cheats, but has the chutzpah to scream that it's actually the other player who is cheating, as if he can win his way through sheer loudness. Then when that doesn't work either, he'll likely kick the table over and stomp off in a fake rage, yelling that the game is all bull anyway, being good at it doesn't matter.
The biggest enabler of such childishness are those in the audience who want to see a spectacle, the sort of people who eat up all the tabloid trash about the problems of the rich, famous, and successful, get joy out of watching the high and mighty humbled and humiliated. Think it would it be fun to watch a really dirty football game, in which the best players are one by one deliberately injured, forcing them out of the game, balls aren't properly inflated, the referees push their credibility to the limits with questionable calls, and even the fans get in on it, trying to disrupt the game with more than mere noise, they start throwing beer bottles and tortillas and themselves on the field. Perhaps it'd be fun while it was novel, but after a couple of seasons of such dirty pool, perhaps culminating in victory by murdering the entire opposing team by, say, sabotaging their plane so it crashes, having moved on from merely slipping a Mickey Finn their drinks so they can't play well, or changing the location at the last minute so one team misses the game, I'd hope public opinion would cry out against it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08 2016, @04:37PM
You think the democrats are not doing the same exact thing? These people give you a face of 'we are going to take down those dirty XYZs' then turn around and do the exact same thing.
Take net neutrality. Something all republicans are against? Right? Riiiight? Spin back the clock to 2005. It was the exact opposite. Nothing really changed other than who people were voting for. The republicans were against anything that limited the net. The democrats wrote bills that tried to tax it and limit what could go on there. Spin the clock forward to today. Well look at the 180 positions. Our legislatures and congress and even president are little more than sock puppets for the businesses that actually write our laws. In one case here in NC with a internet thing the dude didnt even bother answering the phone. TWC had a phone bank setup for him and ran his phones to answer about the bill they wrote. That man was a 'democrat'. Bill was shot down by the republicans. Spin forward on year. Pretty much same bill introduced by a republican. Same phone bank thing. It passed. This is how bought and brazen these companies are about this.
Trump is a interesting one. Both parties elites turned on him. The republicans got the message quick from their voters. Step in line with Trump or forget having that cushy voting job anymore where you lie to us everyday.
I'd hope public opinion would cry out against it.
Not sure you have been paying attention then. Things like Sanders, Trump, BLM, Tea Party (before co-opt), 99%, 2014 (vote em out), etc are the cracks starting to show. People are done with this BS. Take something like Trump. People normally do not stand in 2 mile long lines to get into political a rally. It just does not happen. Yet in the past few months it is nearly a daily occurrence. People are pissed at the system. They are looking to pick the guy who tips over the apple cart just for something different than rip you off smile and say too bad your job went to Bangalore should have studied something else. People start of fairly 'nice' about it. But eventually they will feel fed up about it.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday November 08 2016, @10:11PM
Both are corrupt. But there is a difference. Republicans embraced the anti-science, anti-education, and anti-fact crowd. They want to instill propaganda in our children, and call that education. Democrats aren't above lying and denial-- their stance on intellectual property law and love affair with Hollywood comes to mind-- but I have yet to see them embrace ignorance the way Republicans have. Republicans haven't yet dared to openly say they want to turn the nation towards barbarism, turn life back into nothing more than the savage and dead simple endless contest for food and mates, but many of them would like that. Look at the recent history of Cambodia for an example of how that turned out, when the Khmer Rouge was in power. They killed people for being smart. If you wore glasses, that meant you might be smart, and they'd kill you for it. Republicans still try to pretend there is rational thought behind their opinions and stances, but nominating Trump is the closest they've come yet to removing the mask.
Republicans love, love, love one part of the government they so profess to hate: the military. And of course they love guns and police. What is the purpose of having such an enormous military? If it's jobs, why can't we employ all those soldiers more usefully, by, for instance, fixing our highways? Even to them it's obvious enemies of the kind that Climate Change is can't be defeated with a few bullets and bombs. So they engage in denialism about that. But a large military is useful for competing with rival groups of humans for land, resources, and mates. Republicans are real obnoxious and entirely too sure of victory, seem to think it will be no problem to beat up a bunch of Muslim terrorists if only the namby-pamby peacenik spoilsport Democrats can be shoved out of the way.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Tuesday November 08 2016, @04:22PM
Florida is more south than Morocco. If a piss-poor African country like Morocco, which is mostly desert, can build a solar power station [google.com] for part of its energy needs,
then I don't understand why Florida can't.
It's obvious that the Floridans (Floridaians? Florids?) need an energy storage facility for their fantastic solar power capacity; the molten salt storage in Ouarzazate [wikipedia.org] is an artifact of the type of solar plant that they have built there, and not a generic electricity battery. Maybe Florida's power companies could investigate what happened to TEPCO's Sodium-Sulfur batteries. Obviously not if the place floods a lot ...
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08 2016, @07:17PM
Floridians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floridian [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08 2016, @07:21PM
Florida has choices that Morocco doesn't. Florida has nuclear.
Florida has expensive land compared to Morocco.
Florida has people who object to clearing natural land.
Florida is largely swamp.
In any case, this law has nothing to do with utility-scale solar. It's about residential solar, an entirely different beast.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday November 08 2016, @08:20PM
You forgot: Florida has cloudy afternoons, daily rain, and occasional hurricanes.
All of which Morocco doesn't, which changes the solar equation by quite a bit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08 2016, @07:25PM
I love seeing people crawl out of the woodwork to explain how real democracy is stupid and we should feel bad for the monopoly that works at being "just good enough".
I know, lets get a dictator to run the US! Then we can do away with pesky regulations and protesters, who cares how its done as long as industrial progress (only the stuff that's good for profit margins though) gets to move along without question.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08 2016, @08:59PM
t-hehe i got frist [sic] post.
anyways, i did NOT read the link and whats going on in florida.
for me the breaker triggers if there's anything against installing more sun-power-suction onto the grid...so my bad.
it does seem that there are laws that allow a home-owner to partially lease their own home. for example the roof?
noew we can discuss that, either the law, that says that to be eligible for "net-metering" -aka- CAPITALISM one has to install
the solar-kama-ka-dingy on a roof (even if ones even has a garden or excessive unused and hopefully unshaded space to accommodate solar panels) -or- the law that one can "half mortgage or rent/lease a house" (the roof) is wrong.
for me personally, i think both laws are crap.
sure, one can own a building, multi-floored and rent one floor or even make it really really big and then rent multiple apartments per floor or such. but to rent a roof?
also the law that says solar panels need to "belong to a building" (duh the roof) to be eligible for net-metering is crap.
both laws are crap.
nobody in their right mind would rent a roof and nobody in the right mind thinks that solarpanels that produce electricity can only reside on a roof.
me, personally, i love my roof. it keeps me dry and warm. i don't mess with it. i installed my solarpanels in the garden, connected it without any ordnance and am enjoying
easy access to cleaning (without falling to my death) and lower electricity bills.
mind you i get paid nothing, since it is only offsetting my usage, like installing LED lights, just without actually installing LED lights ... on the roof : )
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08 2016, @09:18PM
may i add this little thought experiment?
a LED is a tiny atomic junction that emits light.
tiny.
atomic.
now take a DC LED lamp and hold it up to (or next to) a 100 KVA A/C transformer.
you see? no problem. nobody complains. just buy and install.
on the other hand, take a 300 watt solar panel (1 x 2 m) and try to connect it to the grid ... voila .. all hell breaks lose (not really but "the law" and it's not physics law).
it's not that a small atomic junction (LED) is the problem, since you are USING and paying for electricity, but rather that the same or rather
very similar physics (solar panels P-N junction or N-P junction) is NOT paying money but rather maybe saving fossil fuels that could be sold (for "profit"), that all hell breaks lose!!!
so again: 100 KVA transformer connected to a atomic sized junction less then the size of a hairs diameters equals no problem but solar panel equals BIG problem : )
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @08:37PM
Going against the usual trend to approve any measure that shows up on a ballot, this one was voted down [miamiherald.com].