Vote NO on Amendment 1

[MusicMan]

Please vote NO on Amendment 1. We are the Sunshine State, and JEA should be promoting rooftop solar every way possible.

The major Florida newspapers, The Tampa Bay Times, The Miami Herald, and the the Orlando Sentinel, have investigated and all agree that this amendment will be bad for residents of the Sunshine State. All support a NO Vote on this amendment. And they are right.

Check out this link : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/florida-solar-amendment_us_580e7b18e4b0a03911ee6124

Let's be honest, if Exxon Mobil is supporting the amendment you know it cannot be truly pro solar.

PLEASE VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 1!

[spuwho]

Agreed. This is a tool to have utilities and only utilities supply solar through your bill.  Basically it would allow them to create a pure solar offering, charge you for it and supposed to use that extra revenue to purchase more solar capacity.

What will happen in real terms is the utility will pocket that revenue as profit, purchase the cheapest, least effective solar energy credits they can find.

You will feel good spending more for your fossil fed energy, while in reality, you are actually subsidizing a solar build out in a more friendly state.

That is why this amendment is bad news. Its has no regulatory safeguards.

In other news, Target passed WalMart in total solar footprint nationally. IKEA is 5th nationally, but moving up

[finehoe]

[Jumpinjack]

Miami Herald Investigates Solar Sham Strategy:

Insider reveals deceptive strategy behind Florida's solar amendment

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article109017387.html

Who favors and who opposes solar Amendment 1?

Amendment 1 will be voted on during the November 8 election. McClatchy
BY MARY ELLEN KLAS
Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau

TALLAHASSEE
The policy director of a think tank supported by Florida's largest electric utilities admitted at a conference this month what opponents have claimed for months: The industry attempted to deceive voters into supporting restrictions on the expansion of solar by shrouding Amendment 1 as a pro-solar amendment.

Sal Nuzzo, a vice president at the James Madison Institute in Tallahassee, detailed the strategy used by the state's largest utilities to create and finance Amendment 1 at the State Energy/Environment Leadership Summit in Nashville on Oct. 2.

Nuzzo called the amendment, which has received more than $21 million in utility industry financing, "an incredibly savvy maneuver" that "would completely negate anything they (pro-solar interests) would try to do either legislatively or constitutionally down the road," according to an audio recording of the event supplied to the Herald/Times....

[bencrix]

U.S. Green Building Council - Florida has come out against Amendment 1.


At the same time, they've assembled a very good resource for information on the Amendment, if you'd like to make up your own mind, including literally all media coverage, who supports / funds either side, etc.

http://usgbcflorida.org/Amendment-1

It is also important to consider how the outcome on Nov. 8 will affect our local controversy regarding JEA's proposal to reduce net metering rates. The JEA board deferred a decision regarding the proposed change until after the election.

http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2016/04/19/jea-board-punts-on-solar-changes-waiting-for-state.html

.

One possible interpretation for the wait is that a Yes on Amendment 1 would empower JEA to follow through with its plans to curtail net metering and by extension the local rooftop solar market.

[spuwho]

Actually, the whole thing could backfire.

There is no law that requires you to hook up to a electric utility. A new housing development could create their own solar grid off their rooftops.

One could go completely "off grid" and have nothing to do with a utility. Houses could be built to be self sustaining from the get go.

I understand why these entities are pushing this amendment and the economics behind it, but these kinds of efforts should be done through a public utilities commission. Energy policy shouldnt be set by a constitutional amendment.

Next thing you know is we will have a twisted worded amendment to ban electric car sales because the oil industry doesnt like it.

Its just bad public policy.

[FlaBoy]

Why do people still support a mandate for Obamacare but don't like a mandate when it comes to utilities in order to keep the prices cheaper for more people? 

[Tacachale]

Why do people still support a mandate for Obamacare but don't like a mandate when it comes to utilities in order to keep the prices cheaper for more people? 

Unfortunately, the measure isn't designed to keep prices cheaper. It's just designed to keep up the status quo. The only language it contains about pricing for consumer is an abstract claim 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". This really means that they (the power companies) want to do away with net metering (the practice of solar users getting a stipend for putting surplus power back into the grid), and would prefer charging solar customers extra to make up for the fossil energy they would have used if they didn't have solar panels. Neither would directly affect average users' rates, especially if the state came up with a system for solar customers to contribute to the infrastructure they use.

[finehoe]

Why do people still support a mandate for Obamacare but don't like a mandate when it comes to utilities in order to keep the prices cheaper for more people? 

Why do people make comparisons between two things that are in no way alike?

[FlaBoy]

The point is that these companies are quasi-governmental organizations and they are afraid of losing money, but also believe that they will have to pass the buck onto the rest of us if too many people jump on solar. They want a mandate that everyone have to pay their fair share to keep costs down for everyone, correct? I am not saying that is valid, but it is the argument.

[FlaBoy]

I am not voting for Donald Trump. I consider myself a pretty middle of the road type guy on most things. But all the Left can muster nowadays are ad hominem attacks to arguments or even just questions that challenge. The Trump people are just as bad and that is why our country is where it is at.

[Adam White]

They want a mandate that everyone have to pay their fair share to keep costs down for everyone, correct? I am not saying that is valid, but it is the argument.

I think what they want is essentially a guaranteed monopoly. Guaranteed profits. They can pretend it's about saving the consumer money, but they are not non-profit organizations. They're already taking money from consumers above and beyond their operating costs (and stuff like R&D, etc).

I don't think this is remotely about trying to do right for customers - it's about elimintating potential competition and ensuring profit margins long-term.

[FlaBoy]

They want a mandate that everyone have to pay their fair share to keep costs down for everyone, correct? I am not saying that is valid, but it is the argument.

I think what they want is essentially a guaranteed monopoly. Guaranteed profits. They can pretend it's about saving the consumer money, but they are not non-profit organizations. They're already taking money from consumers above and beyond their operating costs (and stuff like R&D, etc).

I don't think this is remotely about trying to do right for customers - it's about elimintating potential competition and ensuring profit margins long-term.

For sure. Of course it is in their interests to have everyone paying. Because they are a quasi-governmental agency it is tricky though.

[finehoe]

For sure. Of course it is in their interests to have everyone paying. Because they are a quasi-governmental agency it is tricky though.

Who is "they"?

[FlaBoy]

Most of the power companies.