4 ms·

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

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

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