|
Various energy groups are engaged in lobbying efforts to retain or gain the power to bill solar users additional charges to make up for lost revenue. Here in Florida, this is taking the form a ballot issue this year. Here is the text of Florida's Amendment 1 on the ballot this November, which has been backed financially by these lobby groups.quote: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. So this is worded in away that makes it seem pro-solar, especially after reading that first sentence which I imagine is about as far as many voters are willing to go before checking the yes box. Florida already has that right, but the rest is still confusing depending on how you look at it. Groups that are pushing a no vote on this bill include solar industry groups (obviously), environmental groups, and libertarians. I am personally getting lots of facebook spam from environmental groups about how this bill is a big scam by greedy energy companies to end solar expansion, but I am skeptical for a few reasons. Personally, I do not own a property suitable for a solar installation and even if I did I can't afford to install or maintain it. It really seems to me that the only people who benefit from a no vote are wealthy enough to do it, allowing them to withdraw from supporting necessary infrastructure and pushing higher energy costs on people who can't afford solar installations. So what is correct thought on this issue? I am all for development and expansion of environmentally friendly energy, but not at the cost of a regressive tax on people who can't afford to implement it.
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 12:52 |
|
|
Your analysis is correct in that it is a bullshit provision, much the same as the medical marijuana one was 2 years ago. This is an egregious attempt to trick voters into voting for something they don't understand after looking at it a mere 20-30 seconds in the ballot booth. It's loving disgusting. You definitely want to vote "no" here. Let me explain a bit more in an [edit]. There is a 30% tax credit to be applied your federal income taxes right now if you choose to install solar on your 1st or 2nd home (no rental properties). Your local utilities, however, are not connected to this tax benefit in any way - they get no immediate benefit from your decision to install solar, and will experience a minimal drop in revenue that they would otherwise be extorting from you as the homeowner. They are either funded by your utility payments, local taxes, federal subsidies of some sort, or a combination of the three. If the ENTIRE population of single-family residence homeowners of Florida were to all of a sudden LEAP INTO ACTION and install solar systems on the roofs of their homes, the traditional electric utilities would indeed experience a sharp decline in revenue. Because SFR owners pay a disproportionate amount of the total electrical-utility revenue pie, this would (in theory) cause costs to go up for the remainder of the users of the traditional electrical utilities. HOWEVER - a) there is certainly no MAD loving RUSH to go install solar panels on your roof in a state which gets hammered by hurricanes when a good portion of these solar companies install products that can be torn off in a hurricane - and I am no longer an insurance agent and never was an insurance agent in Florida, but when I was an insurance agent solar panels were not covered under either regular homeowner's policies or windstorm policies. b) Individual homeowners do use power inefficiently and thus more electricity per-square foot than the really massive electricity users, and the overall effect of a sudden drop in grid electricity consumption by consumers that would install solar would reduce those users' grid consumption and would cause a certain (minimal) amount of lost revenue to the utility company. This does NOT, however, translate into any significant additional burden for the remainder of the grid users. It does make per-unit electricity more expensive if total grid power consumption overall remains roughly the same, but unless there is a truly massive shift by SFR homeowners to solar the overall effect to the regular consumer will be negligible. In the event of a truly massive shift. the consumers hardest hit would be home renters, condominium owners that were not able to add solar to their development, and apartment dwellers. That would be bad, true - but again, this is predicated on a MASSIVE adoption of solar. That won't happen unless there is a much greater incentive than a mere 30% tax credit. Plus, if you live here and have seen your power bill jump from $40 in November to $410 in January because "it's cold and more people are using more power," you can see RIGHT THROUGH this bullshit. Power companies are throughly and irredemably anti-consumer when it comes to pricing; even the ones nominally owned by the community or municipalities. c) The above also assumes that power production would remain relatively constant. Although the SFR homeowners do pay a disproportionate amount for their electric grid utility consumption, a massive adoption of solar by the SFR homeowners of Florida would nevertheless drive down a lot of inefficient consumption and would increase the proportion of massive & efficient (btw: I am using "massive & efficient" in the sense that "massive & efficient" is more efficient simply because it is massive - economy of scale) consumption. This should not have the effect of "forcing" the grid utility to actually raise costs for users of low-efficiency output. Huge hikes in electricity bills for renters & homeowners under any circumstances will cause riots politically, and so before that even happens the pressure would be on to normalize rates by raising the cost of consumption to the large efficient users . . . who can both a) afford it; and b) expend a great deal more of their own resources on adopting solar and other more efficient electrical consumption processes themselves. So - the real issue here is that traditional grid electric utilities do actually stand to lose revenue if there is a widespread adoption of solar. Which is not happening. Even if it DID happen, what would actually happen is that there would be a smaller demand for peak (i.e. the most expensive) power. But, if the grid utilities were SMART, they would be using these lobbying dollars to invest in their own incentive programs to homeowners and work with the state on providing tax breaks to these same homeowners on their property taxes, which are loving RIDICULOUS in Florida. You would have a program that is 10x more successful, drive energy costs down by reducing the amount of inefficient use, align the revenue income with the largest & most efficient users of electricity (and for those that are large inefficient users, automatically create a financial incentive to become more efficient at no taxpayer cost), create a more honest & innovative solar alternative market that could have positive nationwide effects, and still retain profits. But - no. Let's convince the Little Guy they are getting hosed by the gubmint because Joe Sixpack across the street put a solar panel on his roof. THAT SOLAR PANEL IS YOUR TAX DOLLARS WASTED BY OBAMA. Jesus I'm ranting again. These Florida political shenanigans get me really worked up. ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT WOULD GUARANTEE YOUR RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN TO NOT ALLOW OTHERS WHO MAY OR MAY NOT ACTUALLY BE ALIENS OR EVEN JUST BROWN PEOPLE WHO MAY OR MAY NOT BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST OUR REDEEMER TO WATCH FOREIGN NEWS PROGRAMS THAT COULD EXPRESS ANTI-AMERICAN VALUES SUCH AS SUPPORT OF REGULATED HEALTH CARE OPTIONS, STATE-SPONSORED BABY-KILLING ABORTIONS, JOB-KILLING WELFARE BENEFITS FOR PERSONS WHO ARE IRRESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO BECOME HANDICAPPED OR MENTALLY DISABLED ALTHOUGH GOD GAVE THEM EYES AT BIRTH THROUGH WHICH THEY REFUSE TO SEE, OR THAT MAYBE NOT EVERY SINGLE PERSON HAS THE GOD-GIVEN AND INALIENABLE RIGHT TO OWN AND BRANDISH AN ARMALITE AR-10 LIGHTWEIGHT, AIR-COOLED, MAGAZINE-FED, GAS-OPERATED RIFLE THAT USES A PISTON WITHIN THE BOLT CARRIER WITH A ROTARY BOLT LOCKING MECHANISM. KaiserSchnitzel fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Oct 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
Actually this is more even-handed than my rant: https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Solar_Energy_Subsidies_and_Personal_Solar_Use,_Amendment_1_(2016)
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 17:02
|
|