6 ms·

How Florida's electricity utilities are manipulating voters to oppose solar

69 points by OrwellianChild 10y ago

noonespecial 10y ago
Just in case it wasn't clear: If you're in Florida and you want a solar future, vote NO on Amendment 1. It's a backhanded trick that pretends to give consumers rights that they already have while sneaking in language making it much easier for the power company to raise rates especially on people installing partial solar (grid tie) systems. Even if you're too disgusted with the whole affair to vote for which monkey will swing from the Executive branch for the next term, it's worth going to the polls in FL just to nix Amendment 1.
- edtechdev 10y ago
  In Florida, amendments require 60% of the vote to pass, so I'm hoping this one won't. But the electric companies have spent over $18 million in support of this amendment, ten times the opposition. There are constant ads on TV now, and none that I've seen that are against the amendment. https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Solar_Energy_Subsidies_and_Personal_Solar_Use,_Amendment_1_(2016) https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Solar_Energy_Subsidies_and_P... At the same time, my electric company is asking to raise rates by $811 million. It's pretty much a monopoly/oligarchy. http://protectingyourpocket.blog.palmbeachpost.com/2016/10/26/psc-to-decide-is-fpls-811-million-settlement-deal-in-the-public-interest/ http://protectingyourpocket.blog.palmbeachpost.com/2016/10/2... My roof was damaged from hurricane Matthew, and I'm drooling over the new SolarCity/Tesla solar roof, but it looks that won't be an option for us in Florida anytime soon, especially if this amendment passes.
  - zeusk 10y ago
    To an electric utility, how is it (panels + powerwall) different from just conserving electricity? From their side, it is just decreased consumption. Sure, it hurts their profits and bottom line but how will they even enforce this BS?
    - makomk 10y ago
      From their side, it's just decreased average consumption. They still need to have the generation and infrastructure to power everyone when there's a prolonged dull spell. A lot of energy company initiatives recently have been about reducing their peak-to-average power ratio because it affects their costs, and this has the potential to make it a lot worse.
      - OrwellianChild 10y ago
        The utilities may well need to rely on energy storage systems to time-shift generation to usage, but having Powerwall + Solar systems in place effectively drops peak power usage, which should be a net gain to the grid's peak-to-average ratio.
  - omfg 10y ago
    Interesting. I haven't seen one vote Yes sign or commercial. But vote No is pretty much everywhere.
- tropo 10y ago
  Voting YES would be safer, not that cramming random crap into the constitution is pretty. Net metering will bankrupt the power companies, leading to a bailout. It'll make Enron look minor. Here is why: 1. Some people install grid-connected solar. This being Florida, they cover 100% of their average electrical usage via the solar. This causes their power bill to go to zero, so they no longer contribute to the cost of maintaining the power lines that they benefit from. 2. The cost of grid maintenance is shifted to the non-solar customers. With the rising cost of power for consumers, more people install solar. Prices for consumers continue to rise. 3. Eventually there are very few people actually paying for power, even though everybody remains connected to the grid and expecting to get power at night. The power company is forced to buy daytime power that goes unused -- they need to burn it off somehow! The few paying customers have to cover the cost of that, plus the entire cost of the grid. 4. At some point, non-solar people are forced to disconnect. If they can't install solar, they will just have to move away. They can't afford to support everybody else and the grid. 5. There is no revenue. Costs are crazy high. The power company can not pay for employees or fuel. They start to let stuff break and shut down. The grid-connected solar users find that power is often unavailable during the night. 6. The state government issues an emergency order to take control of the power company in some way. There is a huge bailout.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
    Can't this be fixed simply by separating the electricity usage charge and "supply charge". We have this in Australia where we are charged a daily rate just to be connected to the grid.
  - OrwellianChild 10y ago
    This is funny because you are quoting, almost exactly, the death-spiral fear mongering that the parent article debunks.
    - tropo 10y ago
      It was actually happening in Hawaii until the state put a stop to new installs. The death spiral isn't obvious at first. It can take some time to really get going. In the short term, there will even be the occasional benefit for the utilities, such as avoiding an upgrade. The death spiral is still there though, even if it gets off to a slow start. In any case, it just makes sense that: 1. all customers should pay a fair share to support the grid, even if they are exclusively selling power 2. pay for solar-generated power should be according to current (this moment right now) value, at wholesale rates, discounted due to fluctuations and the inability of the utility to choose when they buy it
clumsysmurf 10y ago
A "Follow the Money" picture worth a thousand words: "Fossil fuel and other monopoly utility-aligned groups backing Yes on 1 for the Sun" https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/energyandpolicy/pages/569/attachments/original/1461165042/Yes-on-1-for-the-sun-Consumers-for-Smart-Solar-April-2016.jpg https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/energyandpolicy/pages/...
dragthor 10y ago
People are not as dumb as you think.
- socialist_coder 10y ago
  Oh yeah? It worked for the taxi industry in Austin. They tricked people into banning Uber and Lyft, so the taxi industry can continue to operate their monopoly. Look at the actual text of what is on the ballot here: >> This amendment establishes a right under Florida's constitution for consumers to own or lease solar equipment installed on their property to generate electricity for their own use. State and local governments shall retain their abilities to protect consumer rights and public health, safety and welfare, and to 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. It's pretty tricky. Tell me you honestly don't think that a huge amount of people are going to vote yes on that thing.
  - Nadya 10y ago
    >Oh yeah? It worked for the taxi industry in Austin. They tricked people into banning Uber and Lyft, so the taxi industry can continue to operate their monopoly. I know what you're talking about with that one! Going to quote myself from earlier on it... >"The way the phrasing was to accept/decline the ordinance to outlaw Uber was so confusingly worded I read it several times and still wasn't sure if I was supposed to vote "yes" or "no" on the ordinance... was it saying "yes" to the new ordinance to overrule/replace the old ordinance or was it voting "yes" to keep the old ordinance? If I voted "yes" was I voting to outlaw Uber or allow Uber? I have a feeling it was intentionally made as confusing as possible." It isn't that people are stupid - it's that these things are worded in such a way to make it as confusing as possible for people to understand. Or to purposefully mislead, such as the bit you quote.
    - socialist_coder 10y ago
      > It isn't that people are stupid - it's that these things are worded in such a way to make it as confusing as possible for people to understand. Or to purposefully mislead, such as the bit you quote. I don't disagree with that. Calling someone stupid who is mislead by this type of thing isn't really fair. It's very very tricky and you really need to do research ahead of time in order to make the correct vote. If you don't know who is bankrolling it, or how other groups feel about it, it would be quite difficult to vote "correctly" just based on what you're reading in the voter booth.
socialist_coder 10y ago
I sent in my FL mail ballot a couple weeks ago and this amendment was on there. After first skimming it, I was about to just quickly vote YES, but something wasn't sitting right. It seemed very fishy - it was trying to support solar, but the wording was super weird, like they were trying to trick me. The problems they were saying it would solve just didn't seem realistic. A quick google search revealed who was bankrolling the amendment, which confirmed my suspicions. Fuck this thing. I wish they had some kind of "follow the money" thing included in the ballot. Like, no matter how many wrongly named shell companies you go through, the actual source of the money should be right there on the ballot so voters know who is truly driving these amendments. Super tricky though, it won't surprise me at all if this thing passes. This is yet another case where the average human is just not intelligent enough to keep up with the marketing strategies of the most intelligent.
- tropo 10y ago
  They were trying to trick you, which is shady, but that doesn't make the result bad. Without this, we're headed to a huge bailout. In the long term, net metering will force power companies into hopeless bankruptcy. Hawaii has already approached this, stopped only by a state-wide moratorium on new installs.
Agustus 10y ago
There needs to be a website that says who is backing an amendment, really. Additionally, the website should explain the issues of it and why each side is proposing it. I agree with the power companies in that the payment of the grid switch is $15,000 and should be borne by the homeowner. If you are forcing your neighbor to subsidize your solar power installation and subsequent reduction in costs through higher costs for those without solar, when the power company installs the switch on everyone's house they will be bankrupt. Yes, it would be nice if the solar power could be reduced in cost, but forcing others to bear the burden does not seem fair, especially if you are unable to make the initial investment for solar.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  There are numerous studies showing distributed rooftop solar and the net metering that goes along with it is a benefit to utilities. Utilities simply don't want to see their profit dry up.

Just in case it wasn't clear: If you're in Florida and you want a solar future, vote NO on Amendment 1. It's a backhanded trick that pretends to give consumers rights that they already have while sneaking in language making it much easier for the power company to raise rates especially on people installing partial solar (grid tie) systems. Even if you're too disgusted with the whole affair to vote for which monkey will swing from the Executive branch for the next term, it's worth going to the polls in FL just to nix Amendment 1.

edtechdev 10y ago
In Florida, amendments require 60% of the vote to pass, so I'm hoping this one won't. But the electric companies have spent over $18 million in support of this amendment, ten times the opposition. There are constant ads on TV now, and none that I've seen that are against the amendment. https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Solar_Energy_Subsidies_and_Personal_Solar_Use,_Amendment_1_(2016) https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Solar_Energy_Subsidies_and_P... At the same time, my electric company is asking to raise rates by $811 million. It's pretty much a monopoly/oligarchy. http://protectingyourpocket.blog.palmbeachpost.com/2016/10/26/psc-to-decide-is-fpls-811-million-settlement-deal-in-the-public-interest/ http://protectingyourpocket.blog.palmbeachpost.com/2016/10/2... My roof was damaged from hurricane Matthew, and I'm drooling over the new SolarCity/Tesla solar roof, but it looks that won't be an option for us in Florida anytime soon, especially if this amendment passes.
- zeusk 10y ago
  To an electric utility, how is it (panels + powerwall) different from just conserving electricity? From their side, it is just decreased consumption. Sure, it hurts their profits and bottom line but how will they even enforce this BS?
  - makomk 10y ago
    From their side, it's just decreased average consumption. They still need to have the generation and infrastructure to power everyone when there's a prolonged dull spell. A lot of energy company initiatives recently have been about reducing their peak-to-average power ratio because it affects their costs, and this has the potential to make it a lot worse.
    - OrwellianChild 10y ago
      The utilities may well need to rely on energy storage systems to time-shift generation to usage, but having Powerwall + Solar systems in place effectively drops peak power usage, which should be a net gain to the grid's peak-to-average ratio.
- omfg 10y ago
  Interesting. I haven't seen one vote Yes sign or commercial. But vote No is pretty much everywhere.
tropo 10y ago
Voting YES would be safer, not that cramming random crap into the constitution is pretty. Net metering will bankrupt the power companies, leading to a bailout. It'll make Enron look minor. Here is why: 1. Some people install grid-connected solar. This being Florida, they cover 100% of their average electrical usage via the solar. This causes their power bill to go to zero, so they no longer contribute to the cost of maintaining the power lines that they benefit from. 2. The cost of grid maintenance is shifted to the non-solar customers. With the rising cost of power for consumers, more people install solar. Prices for consumers continue to rise. 3. Eventually there are very few people actually paying for power, even though everybody remains connected to the grid and expecting to get power at night. The power company is forced to buy daytime power that goes unused -- they need to burn it off somehow! The few paying customers have to cover the cost of that, plus the entire cost of the grid. 4. At some point, non-solar people are forced to disconnect. If they can't install solar, they will just have to move away. They can't afford to support everybody else and the grid. 5. There is no revenue. Costs are crazy high. The power company can not pay for employees or fuel. They start to let stuff break and shut down. The grid-connected solar users find that power is often unavailable during the night. 6. The state government issues an emergency order to take control of the power company in some way. There is a huge bailout.
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  Can't this be fixed simply by separating the electricity usage charge and "supply charge". We have this in Australia where we are charged a daily rate just to be connected to the grid.
- OrwellianChild 10y ago
  This is funny because you are quoting, almost exactly, the death-spiral fear mongering that the parent article debunks.
  - tropo 10y ago
    It was actually happening in Hawaii until the state put a stop to new installs. The death spiral isn't obvious at first. It can take some time to really get going. In the short term, there will even be the occasional benefit for the utilities, such as avoiding an upgrade. The death spiral is still there though, even if it gets off to a slow start. In any case, it just makes sense that: 1. all customers should pay a fair share to support the grid, even if they are exclusively selling power 2. pay for solar-generated power should be according to current (this moment right now) value, at wholesale rates, discounted due to fluctuations and the inability of the utility to choose when they buy it

clumsysmurf 10y ago

A "Follow the Money" picture worth a thousand words: "Fossil fuel and other monopoly utility-aligned groups backing Yes on 1 for the Sun" https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/energyandpolicy/pages/569/attachments/original/1461165042/Yes-on-1-for-the-sun-Consumers-for-Smart-Solar-April-2016.jpg https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/energyandpolicy/pages/...

dragthor 10y ago

People are not as dumb as you think.

socialist_coder 10y ago
Oh yeah? It worked for the taxi industry in Austin. They tricked people into banning Uber and Lyft, so the taxi industry can continue to operate their monopoly. Look at the actual text of what is on the ballot here: >> This amendment establishes a right under Florida's constitution for consumers to own or lease solar equipment installed on their property to generate electricity for their own use. State and local governments shall retain their abilities to protect consumer rights and public health, safety and welfare, and to 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. It's pretty tricky. Tell me you honestly don't think that a huge amount of people are going to vote yes on that thing.
- Nadya 10y ago
  >Oh yeah? It worked for the taxi industry in Austin. They tricked people into banning Uber and Lyft, so the taxi industry can continue to operate their monopoly. I know what you're talking about with that one! Going to quote myself from earlier on it... >"The way the phrasing was to accept/decline the ordinance to outlaw Uber was so confusingly worded I read it several times and still wasn't sure if I was supposed to vote "yes" or "no" on the ordinance... was it saying "yes" to the new ordinance to overrule/replace the old ordinance or was it voting "yes" to keep the old ordinance? If I voted "yes" was I voting to outlaw Uber or allow Uber? I have a feeling it was intentionally made as confusing as possible." It isn't that people are stupid - it's that these things are worded in such a way to make it as confusing as possible for people to understand. Or to purposefully mislead, such as the bit you quote.
  - socialist_coder 10y ago
    > It isn't that people are stupid - it's that these things are worded in such a way to make it as confusing as possible for people to understand. Or to purposefully mislead, such as the bit you quote. I don't disagree with that. Calling someone stupid who is mislead by this type of thing isn't really fair. It's very very tricky and you really need to do research ahead of time in order to make the correct vote. If you don't know who is bankrolling it, or how other groups feel about it, it would be quite difficult to vote "correctly" just based on what you're reading in the voter booth.

socialist_coder 10y ago

I sent in my FL mail ballot a couple weeks ago and this amendment was on there. After first skimming it, I was about to just quickly vote YES, but something wasn't sitting right. It seemed very fishy - it was trying to support solar, but the wording was super weird, like they were trying to trick me. The problems they were saying it would solve just didn't seem realistic. A quick google search revealed who was bankrolling the amendment, which confirmed my suspicions. Fuck this thing. I wish they had some kind of "follow the money" thing included in the ballot. Like, no matter how many wrongly named shell companies you go through, the actual source of the money should be right there on the ballot so voters know who is truly driving these amendments. Super tricky though, it won't surprise me at all if this thing passes. This is yet another case where the average human is just not intelligent enough to keep up with the marketing strategies of the most intelligent.

tropo 10y ago
They were trying to trick you, which is shady, but that doesn't make the result bad. Without this, we're headed to a huge bailout. In the long term, net metering will force power companies into hopeless bankruptcy. Hawaii has already approached this, stopped only by a state-wide moratorium on new installs.

Agustus 10y ago

There needs to be a website that says who is backing an amendment, really. Additionally, the website should explain the issues of it and why each side is proposing it. I agree with the power companies in that the payment of the grid switch is $15,000 and should be borne by the homeowner. If you are forcing your neighbor to subsidize your solar power installation and subsequent reduction in costs through higher costs for those without solar, when the power company installs the switch on everyone's house they will be bankrupt. Yes, it would be nice if the solar power could be reduced in cost, but forcing others to bear the burden does not seem fair, especially if you are unable to make the initial investment for solar.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
There are numerous studies showing distributed rooftop solar and the net metering that goes along with it is a benefit to utilities. Utilities simply don't want to see their profit dry up.