Vote NO on Amendment 1

[Tacachale]

The power companies do have a point. They are responsible for maintaining the grid, which solar users still use. If they're paying less or nothing (or getting money back), the money has to come from somewhere else. The message from the power companies is that they'll just raise everyone else's rates.

However there are other ways to solve this. The state could require solar companies to chip in for upkeeping the grid. If they wanted to incentivize them, they could issue a credit so that money's still going to the infrastructure. Just using the constitution to eliminate competition, as this measure does, isn't the way. They're basically saying that they can't do solar as well as the independent guys, and don't want any competition to change that.

[finehoe]

Most of the power companies.

Sorry, they aren't quasi-governmental agencies, they are private, for-profit corporations.

[acme54321]

http://www.floridatrend.com/article/15895/energy-companies-in-florida

This is a pretty clear breakdown of the utility companies across Florida.  Notice the list of investor owned utilities are one and the same as those pushing for this bill.  Do you think they would spend all of that money if it wasn't going to make them money or at least keep them making the same money?  Follow the money.

I do see how private solar could really eat into their bottom line.  If household generation gets big enough it could really cause a problem for them.  They could always reduce generation capacity as demand on powerplants decreases but someone will have to maintain the grid which is still basically a requirement if you want power 100% of the time without a massive ($$$) battery storage bank.  Anyway, this bill doesn't really solve that problem, just eliminates competition.

[strider]

The power companies do have a point. They are responsible for maintaining the grid, which solar users still use. If they're paying less or nothing (or getting money back), the money has to come from somewhere else. The message from the power companies is that they'll just raise everyone else's rates.

However there are other ways to solve this. The state could require solar companies to chip in for upkeeping the grid. If they wanted to incentivize them, they could issue a credit so that money's still going to the infrastructure. Just using the constitution to eliminate competition, as this measure does, isn't the way. They're basically saying that they can't do solar as well as the independent guys, and don't want any competition to change that.

Does not Solar work this way:  You have the system, it is hooked into the grid.  If you were to produce only what you needed yourself, no bill.  If you use less than you need, you pull power from the grid and pay going rates for it.  If you produce more than you need, the excess goes into the grid and the power company pays for the power.  The issue I saw earlier with this is that JEA was paying that same for the power a solar system produced that it regularly sold power for.  Basic business says that is not right.  By buying solar power at the net cost of producing power elsewhere to those producing excess solar power and then selling the solar produced power for the higher going rate,  is not the grid maintenance being paid for and is not that fair for all?

I know the solar companies did not like that as it made the payback for home owners much longer.  I know that the power companies want to have it the other way and not pay for the extra power or not pay much at all.  Typical stuff.

Most of the power companies.

Sorry, they aren't quasi-governmental agencies, they are private, for-profit corporations.

I think something like 70% of the countries power companies are private and the rest are public entities.  Like JEA.  So 30% are more than likely "quasi-governemnt".  Still for profit in a way though.

[acme54321]

The issue I saw earlier with this is that JEA was paying that same for the power a solar system produced that it regularly sold power for.  Basic business says that is not right.  By buying solar power at the net cost of producing power elsewhere to those producing excess solar power and then selling the solar produced power for the higher going rate,  is not the grid maintenance being paid for and is not that fair for all?

That's the real issue.  Supposedly JEA is currently paying people MORE for their excess solar than it costs them to produce power.  Not that JEA appears to be backing this bill but that's just an example.  I think it really varies from between power companies.

[MusicMan]

1. How are people who drive electric and hybrid cars billed for their use of roadways? Since they use less gas, and gas taxes pay for road upkeep, shouldn't those people be getting a bill for using the roads that "makes up" for the lower amount they pay in gas tax? I mean they ARE using the road, correct? Just not paying their fair share, correct?

2. When you put a rooftop solar array on your home you spend a lot of money, $6,000-10,000 for a small system. JEA does not pay for any of it, and in truth you use less electricity and therefore less wear and tear on the grid. In fact, rooftop solar kicks out its highest wattage during peak hours of use, bright sunny HOT summer days when everyone has their AC on. This is a benefit to JEA, as the likeliness of outages is reduced during peak operating times. JEA still enjoys customers during off peak hours and everyone using the grid pays for what they use.

3. JEA should be focusing on the future and the 500 pound gorilla facing every citizen of Florida, the impacts of global climate change on rising sea levels and their commitment to providing clean drinking water to those very same citizens. JEA would be smart to promote rooftop solar so that they can focus their resources in the future on those two issues.  I feel like a true visionary leadership at all Florida public utilities would shoot for a goal of 30% of all residential electricity use by 2030 could be provided by rooftop solar. The potential for job growth in manufacturing and installation of these systems could be a model for the world. Elon Musk has done a lot for solar and he continues to create and develop these technologies, which could be implemented in Florida or so it would seem. Gov Rick 'Voldemort' Scott has always proclaimed "Florida is open for business." Why not solar?

[strider]

1. How are people who drive electric and hybrid cars billed for their use of roadways? Since they use less gas, and gas taxes pay for road upkeep, shouldn't those people be getting a bill for using the roads that "makes up" for the lower amount they pay in gas tax? I mean they ARE using the road, correct? Just not paying their fair share, correct?

2. When you put a rooftop solar array on your home you spend a lot of money, $6,000-10,000 for a small system. JEA does not pay for any of it, and in truth you use less electricity and therefore less wear and tear on the grid. In fact, rooftop solar kicks out its highest wattage during peak hours of use, bright sunny HOT summer days when everyone has their AC on. This is a benefit to JEA, as the likeliness of outages is reduced during peak operating times. JEA still enjoys customers during off peak hours and everyone using the grid pays for what they use.

3. JEA should be focusing on the future and the 500 pound gorilla facing every citizen of Florida, the impacts of global climate change on rising sea levels and their commitment to providing clean drinking water to those very same citizens. JEA would be smart to promote rooftop solar so that they can focus their resources in the future on those two issues.  I feel like a true visionary leadership at all Florida public utilities would shoot for a goal of 30% of all residential electricity use by 2030 could be provided by rooftop solar. The potential for job growth in manufacturing and installation of these systems could be a model for the world. Elon Musk has done a lot for solar and he continues to create and develop these technologies, which could be implemented in Florida or so it would seem. Gov Rick 'Voldemort' Scott has always proclaimed "Florida is open for business." Why not solar?

1- of course they should.  But you also have to realize that the payment of the tax has never been equally spread across the road users.  Those who own cars that get low MPG pay more than those with Higher MPG.  Today. most "electric" cars are still hybrids so they still pay tax.  I would imagine that as more electric vehicles get put out there will be some kind of tax applied to the purchase of the plates or to recharge them.

2 - Yes, there is a large expenditure on the part of the solar electric producer.  But there is also a large expenditure to produce electricity to start with regardless of the method.  The power companies need to make a profit of sorts to maintain the grid and so they deserve to also make a profit on any solar power others produce and they later sell. Breaking even or even losing money on solar byu the grid owner/ maintainer does no one any good. Expect the person producing the solar power who already is getting "paid" most of the time through various tax breaks.

3- Solar is not as green as some would think.  There are also other technologies out there that deserve consideration and while, yes, JEA needs to be working towards a future without as much dependency on coal, oil or Natural gas, it needs to be done while considering all the options.

[MusicMan]

I guess in Strider's world the guy who bikes to work gets an invoice for road repair every year too.

"Solar is not as green as some would think."  I disagree, ESPECIALLY HERE IN THE SUNSHINE STATE!  I have had extensive talks with David Schacter, Owner and President of TerraWise a certified green building contractor currently building all over Jacksonville.

(You can go meet with him if you want. He has a gorgeous model home in Springfiled and one on the Northside where he can pull up a real time 'live' connection app showing you exactly how much power has been created that day and for the month as well on a home equipped with rooftop solar.)

Projecting a rooftop solar system creates on average a $120 monthly cash flow benefit to the person who installs it (and it does according to David), and the cost for install is $10,000 after any rebates or tax incentives, the payback over the 25 years of the investment is $36,000 to the solar user. BUT rates will go up over the 25 years and therefore this is a VERY conservative estimate of the value of the system to the owner. The gross payback over the 25 year system life span could easily top $40,000. THAT'S THE KIND OF 'GREEN' YOU CAN SELL TO END USERS, AND THE TYPE OF INFO THAT HAS BEEN MISSING IN THE MARKETING OF THESE SYSTEMS TO THE CONSUMER.

 

[JHAT76]

2. ... In fact, rooftop solar kicks out its highest wattage during peak hours of use, bright sunny HOT summer days when everyone has their AC on. This is a benefit to JEA, as the likeliness of outages is reduced during peak operating times. JEA still enjoys customers during off peak hours and everyone using the grid pays for what they use.

The solar producer will produce excess energy during the morning through the afternoon.  Peak hours will be 3PM - 7PM.  Solar-generated electricity lowers the net load at midday, but as the sun goes down and solar generation declines, there is a much steeper ramp in net load to meet the peak demand in the evening.  There is still a lot of AC use into the evening here in FL.  If the utility has to pay retail rates for net metered generation, the utility could be losing money during the ramp hours.  Also, the utility may be buying excess solar at a time of day when they have cheaper generation on or ramping.  I wold lean more toward a wholesale rate for solar buy back, and/or more time of use and energy demand programs.

This is a good conversation to have, although I feel a constitutional amendment is not the way to go.

[MusicMan]

"If the utility has to pay retail rates for net metered generation, the utility could be losing money during the ramp hours.  Also, the utility may be buying excess solar at a time of day when they have cheaper generation on or ramping."

Except that the utility pays nothing for the solar system. The energy created by the solar system costs JEA nothing. ZERO. ZIP. NADA.
Why would JEA be entitled to make any money on the solar system, since they have invested nothing into it?  The credit to the solar owner is nice, and an important part of the equation, but the reduction in monthly electricity charges is what makes this work. If our state leaders got behind the concept we could implement the systems on a vastly larger scale, bring installation and manufacturing costs down even more.


"This is a good conversation to have, although I feel a constitutional amendment is not the way to go."

Agree with you 100%!!

[bencrix]

Bottom line: there is no demonstrable cross-subsidy (i.e. paid by non-solar roofs to solar roofs to support "the grid") at current or foreseen levels of rooftop solar market penetration.

Yes, a distant future that involves much, much more rooftop solar could result in cross-subsidization, but the economics of such a situation are complicated, with both benefits (which most utilities do not currently attempt to quantify) and costs to consider.

As we approach such a future, utilities and their stakeholders can design business models, rates, etc. that ensure that they recover their costs (and make a reasonable profit) while providing high-value energy services to their customers. The forum for such activities is the Public Service Commission.

[spuwho]

The power companies do have a point. They are responsible for maintaining the grid, which solar users still use. If they're paying less or nothing (or getting money back), the money has to come from somewhere else. The message from the power companies is that they'll just raise everyone else's rates.

However there are other ways to solve this. The state could require solar companies to chip in for upkeeping the grid. If they wanted to incentivize them, they could issue a credit so that money's still going to the infrastructure. Just using the constitution to eliminate competition, as this measure does, isn't the way. They're basically saying that they can't do solar as well as the independent guys, and don't want any competition to change that.

Current power pricing is based on getting power to you, not sending power back.  Net metering is fine if you are only netting out energy costs.  If you are grid connected, the ability to return power is the same as getting to you.

Consumers see it as simply using less energy, but the cost of carriage is fixed. Its made up of power lines, service vehicles,  sub stations, etc that the utility has to maintain to make sure power not only arrives to your home, but also you have somewhere to return the excess energy you create.

Many solar aware states have a utility connection charge that covers much of the fixed costs a utility bears to provide service. The net metering only debits or credits your energy charge since that is what is variable.

However, many utilities have buried their carriage costs into the energy costs so you only see a kWh rate on the bill. They dont want people to see how much overhead actually is floated in their bill.

These are the ones who hate net metering and solar. Because it allows you to directly shop your kWh costs against them.

Due to political pressure, some still offer net metering, but only get credit at the wholesale energy rate. California still credits at the retail rate because they raised the connection charge to make up for it.

Once again for the cheap seats...this is an energy policy issue that should be at the PUC level, not constitutional one.

I still cant believe this is on a ballot.

[finehoe]

I still cant believe this is on a ballot.

Florida Supreme Court, five members appointed by Republicans; two appointed by Democrats.

Believe it.

[FlaBoy]

I still cant believe this is on a ballot.

Florida Supreme Court, five members appointed by Republicans; two appointed by Democrats.

Believe it.

LOL. The Supreme Court of Florida is known for leaning to the left.

Pariente (Chiles), Perry (Crist), Quince (Chiles), and Lewis (Chiles) are strongly to the Left while Labarga (Crist) is probably a swing vote but has some tendencies on certain issues that lean more liberal. Polston (Crist) and Canady (Bush) would be the only conservatives on the Court according to any legal observer.

[FlaBoy]

Most of the power companies.

Sorry, they aren't quasi-governmental agencies, they are private, for-profit corporations.

"JEA is a body politic and corporate of the City of Jacksonville created pursuant to chapter 92-341, Special Acts, Laws of Florida." Even JEA's alliance with other power companies was described by the Supreme Court as an association "in the nature of a public or quasi-public entity organized primarily to discharge duties to the public or to provide a governmental benefit." Why do you think they have monopolies on different areas? Companies like Duke Energy skirt this line but they are still formed on local levels as quasi-governmental.