[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-...

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

[3] http://puc.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/pucnvgov/Content/About/Media...

[4] http://www.synapse-energy.com/sites/default/files/Net%20Mete...

[5] http://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/MN-Value-of-Solar...

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

[7] 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... [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.

[socialist_coder]

re: why should I pay for my neighbor's solar installation?

If you don't think solar is going to be a valuable part of our nation's energy infrastructure, then by all means, vote yes on this.

But, if you do think that solar has a valuable place in the future of our nation's energy production, then I'm not sure why you would want to place the burden of upgrading the power grid to support solar 100% on the backs of the small minority who are using solar right now. It would create a chicken and the egg situation where no one would want to install solar because of all the extra fees you'd have to pay to get the grid upgraded. And, the only way to bring those costs down is by sharing them with more people, but you never get that because the fees are too high. You'd never achieve critical mass for your solar installs.

That is my understanding but I could be 100% wrong. It's impossible to get real information on exactly what this amendment would do. Most of my info is from the ballotpedia site: https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Solar_Energy_Subsidies_and_P...

If that argument doesn't convince you with its logic, just look at the Audio recording leak on the ballotpedia page. That should basically tell you that the opponents are right: "The campaign was based upon the argument that Amendment 1 was designed and funded by utility companies to deceive voters into thinking it was a pro-solar measure, when, in fact, it was written to benefit utility companies and inhibit solar expansion.". Why would you vote YES on that?