Advertisement
  1. Opinion

Dockery: Don't be fooled by anti-solar Amendment 1

Published Sep. 22, 2016

Polls consistently show the overwhelming majority of Floridians have a positive view of solar energy, yet the Sunshine State lags behind many states in solar power.

One obstacle has been the Florida Legislature's reluctance to buck utilities by supporting policies that expand solar-generating opportunities for small businesses or that reduce costs for residential use.

The large power companies don't want to lose market share. That's understandable. They count on customers—ratepayers—to grow their profit. They have to keep their shareholders happy. Nothing wrong with that.

But consumers deserve a choice. Many look at solar power as an environmentally friendly way to take control of their utility costs.

Businesses and homeowners seeking to install solar panels on their roofs consider whether the up-front equipment and installation costs can be offset with long-term savings.

Enterprising small businesses saw an opportunity to help expand solar energy use by leasing solar panels and limiting up-front costs to homeowners. They hope to sell excess electricity to neighboring homes and businesses. This is a free-market solution that would help Florida grow its use of clean, renewable energy while bringing costs down. It requires a change in law.

Investor-owned utilities don't want to change the status quo. In exchange for exclusive service areas, utilities are regulated through the Florida Public Service Commission. Policy changes affecting energy production and distribution are decided by the Legislature. The utilities have historically fared well in both of these arenas.

The utilities financially contribute to candidates, political committees and parties. They have been successful in influencing appointments to the PSC, which sets their rates. So the status quo serves them well.

Imagine their discomfort when a group called Floridians for Solar Choice started a citizens' initiative to deregulate the solar market to allow third-party power providers to sell rooftop solar-generated power to neighbors.

Florida's four largest electric companies launched a counteroffensive. They crafted their own constitutional amendment to compete with the pro-solar effort. Their goal was to confuse voters with competing amendments. As it turned out, they had the resources to get their amendment on the November ballot through paid petition gatherers. The real pro-solar effort didn't have the same deep pockets and fell short of getting on the ballot this year.

The utility-backed "Consumers for Smart Solar" initiative will appear on the November ballot as Amendment One.

The utility industry was very shrewd—and devious—in crafting the amendment language. Instead of promoting choice, it limits it. Instead of allowing competition, it suppresses it. Instead of helping small businesses, it requires more regulation.

The Florida Supreme Court had the chance to keep the deceptive language from the ballot and protect voters from being misled. Instead, the deeply divided court—on a 4-3 vote—allowed it to go forward.

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Barbara Pariente stated, "Let the pro-solar energy consumers beware. Masquerading as a pro-solar energy initiative, this proposed constitutional amendment, supported by some of Florida's major investor-owned electric utility companies, actually seeks to constitutionalize the status quo."

The ballot summary is brilliant in its deception.

It starts with: "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."

This grants no new right—it is already afforded through state law. The purpose of leading with this language was to fool voters into thinking this was pro-solar.

It goes on to say: "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."

This is the crux of the amendment that would require more regulation of small businesses that dare to compete with the monopolistic utility companies. Under the guise of consumer protection, it would actually protect their profits and limit competition.

And it proposes doing this in the Florida Constitution—not through general law, thus making it much more difficult to change.

The four major utilities—Duke Energy, Gulf Power, Tampa Electric and Florida Power & Light—have given the lion's share of the $21 million reported for the initiative. That's a lot of money going to deny us choice and competition.

It takes 60 percent of the vote to pass. The utilities will be spending millions more in sunny-sounding TV ads.

Don't be fooled by their clever ploy. Vote NO on Amendment 1 and let them know you're smarter than they think.

Paula Dockery is a syndicated columnist who served in the Florida Legislature for 16 years as a Republican from Lakeland. She can be reached at PBDockery@gmail.com.

ALSO IN THIS SECTION

  1. A business man and woman holding a sign depicting their political party preference. SHARON DOMINICK  |  iStockphoto.com
    Here’s what readers had to say in Monday’s letters to the editor.
  2. Leonard Pitts undefined
    Don’t wall ourselves off from contradictory opinions, writes Leonard Pitts.
  3. President Donald Trump, right, and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani pose for photographs as Giuliani arrives at the Trump National Golf Club Bedminster clubhouse in Nov. 2016 in Bedminster, N.J.
    Here’s some interesting commentary from the opposite poles of the political spectrum.
  4. (left to right) Nupar Godbole, medical student at USF, and Tiffany Damm, medical student at UCF, take part in a papaya workshop at the University of South Florida Medical Students for Choice Second Annual Florida Regional Conference held in the Morsani College of Medicine on February 24, 2019 in Tampa, Florida. Some of the instruments used in abortions, like the manual vacuum aspirator, are used in an exercise with a papaya, to simulate an abortion. MONICA HERNDON  |  Times
    Here’s what readers had to say in Sunday’s letters to the editor.
  5.  LISA BENSON  |  Lisa Benson -- Washington Post Writers Group
  6. Exhaust rises from smokestacks in front of piles of coal in Thompsons, Texas. [Associated Press]
    A proposed rule masquerades as transparency when it actually is a favor to polluters.
  7. Using a tool provided by NOAA, this map shows what parts of the Tampa Bay region would be underwater if sea levels rose 8 feet, which could happen by 2100. NOAA
    The real-world impacts of climate change are accelerating for us in Tampa Bay.
  8. An architect's rendering of a foster care village proposed for Lake Magdalene. Ross Chapin Architects
    Here’s what readers had to say in Saturday’s letters to the editor.
  9. Campbell Park Elementary School is one of the seven schools included in St. Petersburg City Council member Steve Kornell's plan to help homeless students in the school system. SHADD, DIRK  |  Tampa Bay Times
    The City Council appears poised to help homeless families find places to live more quickly.
  10. Kimberly Clemons, 41, a resident of the Kenwood Inn, St. Petersburg receives a free Hepatitis A vaccination from Fannie Vaughn, a nurse with the Florida Department of Health Pinellas County, Tuesday, October 22, 2019. The health department has issued a state of emergency over the hepatitis A outbreak in Florida.  SCOTT KEELER  |  Tampa Bay Times
    The strategy regarding vaccinations is working and benefits all residents.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement