Florida Constitutional Amendment (SOLAR)

[Mustang65]

Ok, I tried the search and did not come up with anything regarding the upcoming Florida Amendment regarding SOLAR on the November ballet. I know that Amendment 4 in August passed... a first step..and I know that the original amendment for the November ballot failed, but the rewrite (watered down version passed). Most of the research I just completed shows that it is sponsored by the UTILITIES, and most reviews give it a NEGATIVE rating. So now I will ask what your feelings are? More pros? More Cons? I just received my write in ballot.

SunKing?

Thanks for your thoughts,

Don

[organic farmer]

Looking at: https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Sola...ndment_1_(2016)

It sounds a lot like our 'food sovereignty' movement here in Maine. You have the right to grow food, to sell food and to buy food, without fear of the state or federal government jailing you.

Maine has debated a few laws that would have taxed everyone to fund a few private net-metering installations. The big winners in those laws are the bankers.


http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opini...05-column.html

"... There is already a right to use solar equipment for individual use afforded by the Florida Constitution and existing Florida statutes and regulations. It does not explain that the amendment will elevate the existing rights of the government to regulate solar energy use and establish that regulatory power as a constitutional right in Florida ... This ballot initiative is the proverbial 'wolf in sheep's clothing.'"

Other states have been wanting to tax all solar installs. If Florida already has a right to use solar equipment, then this does sound like corporate over-reach.

[SunEagle]

Amendment 1 has been taken over by the Florida POCO's and made out to be the next best thing since slice bread. It is really a wolf in sheep's clothing. If it passes it will lock in the ability for the POCO's to control all solar power. Which means there will be no chance of any Third party being able to build a solar farm on a property in Florida and sell it directly to a customer. The power generated has to sold directly to the POCO.

Now while this may keep out the crappy companies that will catch someone into an outrageous solar lease contract (which I like) it will also keep out a large company from building a community solar farm and selling it to say a condominium that can't install their own solar array. It would also keep out a company that would build a solar array on a commercial building roof and sell the power directly to that business.

So IMO I will be voting No to Amendment 1 and hope that sleazy solar leasing companies are taken care of by the BBB.

[Logan5]

Florida, vote no on Amendment 4 on Nov 8th and Yes on 2

[J.P.M.]

So IMO I will be voting No to Amendment 1 and hope that sleazy solar leasing companies are taken care of by the BBB.

Just like the sterling job the BBB does in CA, huh ?

[SunEagle]

Just like the sterling job the BBB does in CA, huh ?

Yeah. I understand they are not always the best to police businesses even though it says so in their title.

I would rather have the option of leasing a solar system and picking a quality company then not having the option at all.

[J.P.M.]

Yeah. I understand they are not always the best to police businesses even though it says so in their title.

I would rather have the option of leasing a solar system and picking a quality company then not having the option at all.

Having a pretty big libertarian streak, this is a tough one for me. People ought to be able to make choices as they see fit, but often, it seems, people are not fit to make choices, and their poor choices often, to my observation only, tend to spill over on the rest of us making things more difficult. As much as it galls me, and it really does, sometimes people need to be protected from themselves, if only for the greater good. IMO only, the shortsightedness that is, as I see it, one of the common traits of those who lease, is only helping the lease peddler slugs separate folks from their assets, especially senior citizens, of which I believe FL has more than the average number. I've seen too much of it first hand.

Respectfully,

[SunEagle]

Having a pretty big libertarian streak, this is a tough one for me. People ought to be able to make choices as they see fit, but often, it seems, people are not fit to make choices, and their poor choices often, to my observation only, tend to spill over on the rest of us making things more difficult. As much as it galls me, and it really does, sometimes people need to be protected from themselves, if only for the greater good. IMO only, the shortsightedness that is, as I see it, one of the common traits of those who lease, is only helping the lease peddler slugs separate folks from their assets, especially senior citizens, of which I believe FL has more than the average number. I've seen too much of it first hand.

Respectfully,

I agree with you. We seem to have a lot of people down here that are easily convinced into purchasing or spending their money on snake oil or worse. They need to be protected.

I just don't think letting the POCO's control the solar generation is the best way to do it. IMO it would be akin to the foxes protecting the hen house. Not the best plan.

[Mustang65]

Personally, the only input the POCO should have is... does your system meet code... if yes.... we just finished installing your new meter.... have a nice day

Don

[J.P.M.]

I agree with you. We seem to have a lot of people down here that are easily convinced into purchasing or spending their money on snake oil or worse. They need to be protected.

I just don't think letting the POCO's control the solar generation is the best way to do it. IMO it would be akin to the foxes protecting the hen house. Not the best plan.

And I agree with you that POCOs controlling all the generation is practical nonsense, and also does nothing for competition, or at least the appearance of competition.

But, and as seems to be becoming the common way of non thinking as we, as a nation, rush headlong into ideocracy, the idea of something other than all or nothing seems an elusive concept.

I'm not at all familiar with the legislation, but perhaps some mod./amendment like restrictions on 3d party ownership of systems below a size limit, say, 20 kW or so might help the solar ignorant and keep the leasing slugs out of their knickers.

[SunEagle]

And I agree with you that POCOs controlling all the generation is practical nonsense, and also does nothing for competition, or at least the appearance of competition.

But, and as seems to be becoming the common way of non thinking as we, as a nation, rush headlong into ideocracy, the idea of something other than all or nothing seems an elusive concept.

I'm not at all familiar with the legislation, but perhaps some mod./amendment like restrictions on 3d party ownership of systems below a size limit, say, 20 kW or so might help the solar ignorant and keep the leasing slugs out of their knickers.

That is what I am looking for. If the POCO's can't lock up control of who can purchase the generated power then new legislation can be introduced allowing third parties to build large solar farms and either sell to a single or multiple customers provided the purchase fees are within reason.

The idea of a company leasing a small roof top system to a low income family scares the crap out of me and should not be allowed.

[J.P.M.]

Personally, the only input the POCO should have is... does your system meet code... if yes.... we just finished installing your new meter.... have a nice day

Don

So, assuming you're including some type of POCO purchase for what's fed into the grid by the solar owner, does the POCO then get any say in how to divvy up the cost/expense of the infrastructure used to feed/distribute power back into the grid the POCO(s) owns ?