| 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. |
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/