Florida Ballot Initiative

[Szumlanski]

For those of you in Florida, the Floridians for Solar Choice organization is putting up a solar ballot initiative for the 2016 legislative cycle that seeks regulatory change to level the playing field for distributed generation of solar energy. The current Net Metering laws are under attack (not just in Florida). This, as in the general election, is a battleground state for solar energy. Please sign the petition here if you are a registered voter in Florida.

Thank you for your consideration!

Jason Szumlanski

Mod note, Jason you are really stretching it mate, I will allow these links as it is for the greater good, but be aware, not happy about anyone seeking free advertising

[Sunking]

Only way for that to work is with huge subsidies allowing solar producers to even have a chance at profit. Otherwise if they had to compete with the market, they would go bankrupt. That means electric rates have to be jacked up on rate payers.

No Thank You.

[DanKegel]

This would prohibit, for instance, the unfair introduction on demand charges only on solar users, as we're seeing in Arizona.

That part sounds good.

[SunEagle]

Jason

I will read the petition and if I agree then sign and send it.

While I very much support solar pv systems in Florida, I am not convinced that allowing Third parties to build and lease their pv systems to homeowners is the right or even financially wise direction to go. Leasing to commercial operations may be cost effective but leasing to homeowners is not usually in their best interests.

I would prefer to see a better relationship developed between the Utilities, PV equipment suppliers/installers and Homeowners that will benefit them all. Increasing the amount of Solar power generation in Florida is a good path, although not the ultimate or best way to keep the lights on. Adding Solar to the power generation portfolio increases reliability and adds options to provide continuous power but is not the only solution.

Florida must also develop a hardened low cost base power generation that can step in and provide the needed power when Renewable energy stops working. I would hope that all parties involved can develop a good plan to build a solid power generation network comprised of Solar, Fossil and Nuclear fuel fed systems. Leaning too much on any one or two power sources can ultimately be costly and detrimental to a continuous power supply.

Thank you for taking the time to read my comments.

Vincent Ricca

[russ]

Third party leasing (like Solar City and others) is simply legalized theft from the public.

If such tax breaks are allowed it should be to the aid of the buyer - not a third party money man.

Forget excessive FITs - that is anything above the cost of generation by standard sources.

[Szumlanski]

For those that oppose third party leasing, it's all about consumer choice. Of course an outright purchase will provide the best return on investment for a buyer of solar panels. But that's not in the cards for some people. Third party ownership is not "theft." Yes, the "banks" make all the money, but many, many consumers are content with giving their money to a solar company rather than a utility company, and see the environmental benefits of doing so. In addition, if the pace of electricity cost inflation is high, a lease or third party ownership can, indeed, result in drastic savings.

Third party ownership (power purchase agreements) and leases have made the solar energy markets explode in the many states that embrace it, creating thousands of good jobs and broadening the energy mix in those states. Florida is being left in the dust. We are also becoming alarmingly reliant on natural gas, which is cheap today, but there is no guarantee that will stay the case. There is no futures market for solar radiation. It's free. You make an investment today and pay for predictable O&M costs, and there is no fuel to buy. There is no better hedge for Florida's energy future.

If you are claiming that the tax credit hurts taxpayers to the benefit of "banks," you need to read this: http://www.seia.org/research-resourc...tax-credit-itc

Again, buying and owning a system is clearly the best option, but this initiative gives consumers CHOICE. Nothing in the legislation forces anyone to install solar panels. It simply allows individuals and businesses to compete fairly against current monopolies if they find it a viable investment. Utility companies themselves are investing in huge solar farms, and want to stifle competition and keep their exclusive right to sell solar energy. This initiative simply rejects the status quo and let's small producers enter the power generation marketplace. The electricity business is about generation and distribution. For a long time it was not viable for small producers to compete in the generation marketplace, so natural monopolies were a necessity. That is no longer the case, so the paradigm shift is upon us. While distribution remains something that needs an economy of scale suited to a public utility monopoly, power generation has viable competition now, and utilities are fighting to squash the newcomers.

As for the person that thinks solar is only viable with huge subsidies... do your homework. That's 2010 thinking.

[Szumlanski]

Jason
Florida must also develop a hardened low cost base power generation that can step in and provide the needed power when Renewable energy stops working. I would hope that all parties involved can develop a good plan to build a solid power generation network comprised of Solar, Fossil and Nuclear fuel fed systems. Leaning too much on any one or two power sources can ultimately be costly and detrimental to a continuous power supply.
Vincent Ricca

BINGO! We need a real energy policy that embraces a good mix of energy sources. Allowing solar energy (and other generation technologies) to compete on a level playing field is the best way to do that. We can't rely on solar alone, and the utilities play a big part in a successful energy generation policy. It's not possible for an individual to install a nuclear reactor in their basement (or attic here in Florida), but it is completely viable for someone to sell solar energy to a willing buyer. As of now, you can sell solar panels, but you can't sell the energy they produce. It doesn't make sense anymore to let utilities profit from something that anyone can safely and cleanly do themselves. Utilities should not have a monopoly on the sun.

[russ]

BINGO! We need a real energy policy that embraces a good mix of energy sources. Allowing solar energy (and other generation technologies) to compete on a level playing field is the best way to do that. We can't rely on solar alone, and the utilities play a big part in a successful energy generation policy. It's not possible for an individual to install a nuclear reactor in their basement (or attic here in Florida), but it is completely viable for someone to sell solar energy to a willing buyer. As of now, you can sell solar panels, but you can't sell the energy they produce. It doesn't make sense anymore to let utilities profit from something that anyone can safely and cleanly do themselves. Utilities should not have a monopoly on the sun.

BINGO! Glad to see you understand a nuclear plant is not DIY - Wow!

Your green BS is exactly that - how does one party sell to another? Using the grid I suppose? For free I suppose? They utilities do not claim anything on the sun - their distribution system they do.

The leasing companies are stealing from the public - dress it up with what ever political PC bull you want but it is stealing.