1:51

PM EDT October 21, 2016 Jordan Ferrell

Amendment 1: Friend or Foe?

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- Sunshine State voters will once again see an
amendment regarding solar energy on the ballot this November. Some
solar enthusiasts are concerned though that Florida Amendment 1 is
harboring a hidden agenda that just might sti e a relatively young
renewable energy movement.

Not to be confused with Amendment 4, which created favorable ad

valorem tax breaks for consumers who chose to install solar equipment
on their homes, Amendment 1 addresses consumers, mainly non-solar
ones. The title voters will see on the ballot reads, “Rights of Electricity
Consumers Regarding Solar Energy Choice.”

There are two main components to the initiative and both fall more on
the side of redundancy than e ciency. The rst part of the amendment
addresses the establishment of a constitutional right to own or lease
solar equipment, which is already allowed under Florida statutory law,
Chapter 163.04.
The second, and by far most important, addresses the “retention” of
state and local governmental abilities, speci cally in regards to
protecting consumers who do not wish to install solar panels. The
carefully written ballot language drops a subtle but de nitive
implication that solar powered consumers – who remain connected to
the grid – will inevitably cost non-solar utility customers more money.

“We leave the current government structure of having the rights to

protect consumers, to having the rights to regulate this energy, but
every other energy, to make sure that it’s safe and fair,” said Screven
Watson on behalf of Consumers for Smart Solar. “We leave government
as it is today. We don’t expand government control in any way.”

Watson, a former executive director for the Democratic Party of

Florida, defended the committee’s stance several times, insisting that
Amendment 1 is “pro-solar,” despite numerous editorials saying
otherwise. Watson admits that the solar industry in Florida is
expanding and he hopes that the proposed ballot amendment,
following closely on the heels of Amendment 4, will get more people
“focused on solar,” but in the right way.

That “right way,” according to Watson, is government oversight in

terms of monitoring any potential cost shifts that are a direct result of
utility customers switching to rooftop solar power.

“Look, we can’t burden those people whose bills will go up, will
necessarily go up, if they can’t a ord solar and they are getting the
undue burden of keeping up the grid,” said Watson. “There will be no
choice other than to raise the rates on people who can least a ord it.”

Regardless of whether or not you currently use solar energy, the ballot
language can be read as a fair warning of impending cost increases to
those who remain connected to the electrical grid in Florida, which
accounts for a majority of the state.

One of the most questionable aspects of Amendment 1 is the massive

outpouring of support – in the form of campaign dollars – from
electrical utility companies like Duke Energy and Florida Power and
Light Company. As of Sept. 29, Consumers for Smart Solar had received
over $21 million in donations. Roughly half of that came from the two
previously mentioned power companies.

At this point, there should be a clear distinction between “clean” and

“dirty” energy. Most, if not all, of the utility companies in Florida rely
on fossil fuels, coal to be more speci c. The kilowatts of power
produced from coal are labeled as “dirty,” non-renewable energy.

The word dirty obviously implies a negative connotation, but the more
pertinent phrase in that last sentence is non-renewable. Energy
derived from coal isn’t dirty solely because of the carbon dioxide
emissions it produces at combustion. It’s also dirty because, more
times than not, there is no power regeneration at the point of
consumption. Energy comes in. Energy is used. Energy is gone.

Power regeneration at the point of consumption, also known as

distributed generation, is the driving force behind solar energy and
what makes it such a viable and clean option for people who live in
sunshine-laden states like Florida. Distributed generation is also the
antithesis of an economical business model if you are a major utility
company relying on non-renewable fossil fuels.

“We actually work together, because our system, our solar electric, is
grid connected,” says President of A1A Solar Pete Wilking. “This
system is actually co-mingling electricity with the grid power.”

And a vast majority of those who have switched to rooftop solar remain
locked to the grid, for lack of an energy storage unit where they can
reserve those clean kilowatts of power. This is exactly where the not-
so-friendly coexistence between solar customers and utility companies
resides.

President of A1A Solar, Pete Wilking, says as a state-licensed solar

contractor, he is not in support of Florida Amendment 1.

Excess power that Wilking sells to JEA o sets his utility bills through a
process known as net-metering. Under Florida law, owners of
renewable energy systems can net-meter their systems and gain credit
for generating more power than they use. The excess power is then fed
back into the grid for other non-solar customers to use.

While utility-backed Consumers for Smart Solar and other proponents

of Amendment 1 might say net-metering is a good thing, the legal
requirement to purchase and expend excess solar energy, only
compounds the economic issue for utility companies and forces them
to make up lost revenue elsewhere.

“JEA is getting revenue from my excess solar power, but being charged
to my neighbors even though JEA did not produce those green kilowatt
hours that went back to them,” Wilking said. “So, what it does is it
actually helps strengthen the grid, because there are losses in
transmission when you go distances over power lines.”

The advertising campaign for Amendment 1 relies heavily on what

Wilking refers to as “scare tactics.” When questioned about speci c
instances where government could further protect consumers under
Amendment 1, Watson referred to third-party leasing scams in places
like Arizona.

Watson said there are numerous instances of homeowners getting

conned into signing 20-year contracts with companies that lease
energy and photovoltaic paneling to consumers at monthly rates with
included cost escalators. All of which, is completely legal and has been
regarded as an a ordable way to start using clean, renewable energy.

Google struggled to return any results of the numerous horror stories

Watson referred to, but it should be noted that third-party solar leasing
is not currently o ered in Florida.

“There has been instances in other parts of the country where there
have been poor solar contractors not delivering, but it’s really not the
utilities companies’ job to interfere to that level just to protect a
monopolistic business model,” Wilking said.

Pete Wilking has several electric vehicle charging stations set up

around A1A Solar. All of them are powered via the solar panels on the
roof of the building. 
Floridians for Solar Choice, the political committee leading the charge
against Amendment 1, failed to get a measure on the November ballot,
which would have allowed third-party solar options, as well as limit
government and utility company oversight in the buying and selling of
solar power among the citizenry.

From the standpoint of many solar power contractors like Wilking,

there is not much in Amendment 1 for the actual consumer. Wilking
says all of the interests lie with the monopoly utility companies and
that this initiative is really just a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

“We have the technology to capitalize on renewables and unfortunately

the utility companies have billions of dollars of infrastructure, but they
are resisting to embrace distributed generation because it’s di cult,”
Wilking said. “They don’t want to make that transition. So, slowing it
down is the path of least resistance.”

While Watson argues that Amendment 1 doesn’t illicitly imply that

solar power costs non-solar customers more money, make no mistake,
a vote for Amendment 1 is a vote in favor of more government
oversight. Whether or not that means making clean energy options less
a ordable thru penalties and restrictions imposed by utility companies
remains to be seen.

Viewed using Just Read