Sunshine State Considers Bill to Stiff Rooftop Solar Customers

[essentialsaltes]

A bill moving through the state legislature, backed by a powerful utility company, would slash the financial benefits of rooftop solar panels. Opponents of the legislation -- including environmental groups, solar builders and the state NAACP -- say if it passes, a fast-growing green power industry would be turned off overnight, casting a dark cloud over solar's prospects in the Sunshine State.

Like many states, Florida homeowners are reimbursed at roughly the same rate power companies charge their customers, usually in the form of a credit on their monthly bill. Sen. Jennifer Bradley, a Republican who represents parts of north Florida, has introduced legislation that could cut that rate by about 75%

A draft version of the bill Bradley introduced was delivered to her by a Florida Power & Light lobbyist on October 18, according to emails first reported by the Miami Herald and provided to CNN by the Energy and Policy Institute, a watchdog organization that targets fossil fuel and utility interests.

Two days later, Florida Power & Light's parent company, NextEra Energy, made a $10,000 donation to Women Building the Future, a political committee affiliated with Bradley, according to state campaign finance records. The committee received another $10,000 contribution from NextEra in December, those records show.

 

[Bradskii]

A bill moving through the state legislature, backed by a powerful utility company, would slash the financial benefits of rooftop solar panels. Opponents of the legislation -- including environmental groups, solar builders and the state NAACP -- say if it passes, a fast-growing green power industry would be turned off overnight, casting a dark cloud over solar's prospects in the Sunshine State.

Like many states, Florida homeowners are reimbursed at roughly the same rate power companies charge their customers, usually in the form of a credit on their monthly bill. Sen. Jennifer Bradley, a Republican who represents parts of north Florida, has introduced legislation that could cut that rate by about 75%

A draft version of the bill Bradley introduced was delivered to her by a Florida Power & Light lobbyist on October 18, according to emails first reported by the Miami Herald and provided to CNN by the Energy and Policy Institute, a watchdog organization that targets fossil fuel and utility interests.

Two days later, Florida Power & Light's parent company, NextEra Energy, made a $10,000 donation to Women Building the Future, a political committee affiliated with Bradley, according to state campaign finance records. The committee received another $10,000 contribution from NextEra in December, those records show.

Your problem is that you need the reimbursment to make the installation of solar panels viable. The cost os installationnis much higher in the US than it is in Aualstralia:

'Residential solar systems are currently priced at about AUD $1 (about 70 USD cents) per watt in Australia, including installation, Miller said. That compares to USD $2.69 per watt in the U.S., according to 2020 estimates from Wood Mackenzie for the Solar Energy Industries Association.' What Other Countries Can Learn From Australia’s Roaring Rooftop Solar Market

That's almost 4x the cost to just install a system. My wife and I will probably have a system put in this year. And the pay back time (money saved on electricity bills v cost of system) is about five years. That would be closer to twenty years in the US - which would be a deal breaker.

The current administration needs to have a serious look at facilitation the whole process. Cutting out the red tape and ecouraging people to make the move. Just the opposite of what Florida seems to want to do.

The more people you can get to install solar, the cheaper the prices will get and it snowballs.

 

[SimplyMe]

There are times it feels like, to paraphrase Lincoln, the US is becoming government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.

 

[cow451]

Small gubment strikes again.

 

[JustOneWay]

There are times it feels like, to paraphrase Lincoln, the US is becoming government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.

Welcome to Costco, I love you....

 

[Vylo]

Usually this is done through net metering, without net metering it makes solar much less worthwhile, despite solar doing a lot to save power companies money through shaving peak capacity.

 

[Arcangl86]

Got to love it when the party that loves talking about the free market imposes artificial limits on that market.

 

[Pommer]

Got to love it when the party that loves talking about the free market imposes artificial limits on that market.

“Free-market” conservatives lost out to the “trade wars are good and easy to win” Guy.

 

[Bradskii]

There are times it feels like, to paraphrase Lincoln, the US is becoming government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.

I'll play the Devil's Advocate here and suggest that the energy company has a valid concern that as more people take up solar, their income would fall. Just as it would for my local greengrocer if I started growing my own veg. But...that's capitalism for you. If you have something I want, I'll be prepared to buy it from you at a reasonable rate. If I don't need it I won't pay for it.

And unless you have a decent battery and maybe a generator, then it's impractical to come off the grid completely. So it's fair and reasonable for a company that supplies electricity to your property for some of the time to charge you for the infrastructure. And the amount that you pay should reflect the amount that you use. So what they pay you for a kiloWatt of energy is going to be less that what you pay them. It should be the cost of the power less your share of the cost of maintaining the infrastructure.

Digging into the figures in this report shows that amount to be around 40%: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...e%20Bill.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0D1oB1yn5u9LA85QIzylan.

So if you pay $1 per unit for incoming electricity then it might be reasonable for the supplier to pay you 60c for anything that you generate.

 

[Nithavela]

10k to buy a bill in Florida? Wow, even I could afford that if given some time. That's a really cheap legislature you got there.

I don't see the problem. People who want solar power to remain should just set up a go-fund-me and outbribe the utilty companies. That's how democracy works in the USA, as far as I can tell.

 

[Vylo]

I'll play the Devil's Advocate here and suggest that the energy company has a valid concern that as more people take up solar, their income would fall. Just as it would for my local greengrocer if I started growing my own veg. But...that's capitalism for you. If you have something I want, I'll be prepared to buy it from you at a reasonable rate. If I don't need it I won't pay for it.

And unless you have a decent battery and maybe a generator, then it's impractical to come off the grid completely. So it's fair and reasonable for a company that supplies electricity to your property for some of the time to charge you for the infrastructure. And the amount that you pay should reflect the amount that you use. So what they pay you for a kiloWatt of energy is going to be less that what you pay them. It should be the cost of the power less your share of the cost of maintaining the infrastructure.

Digging into the figures in this report shows that amount to be around 40%: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjClbfyw8z1AhWKPpQKHVVDBBUQFnoECAMQAQ&url=https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-08/Australia%27s%20Household%20Infrastructure%20Bill.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0D1oB1yn5u9LA85QIzylan.

So if you pay $1 per unit for incoming electricity then it might be reasonable for the supplier to pay you 60c for anything that you generate.

Their income won't fail as an energy company. I say this as someone who has both worked for my state's renewable program and an utility energy provider. first, solar shave off peak demand which helps utilities not have to provide peak power. Secondly, man utilities need to provide a certain amount of renewable power, which this provides.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The price the utility pays for wholesale power is the wholesale rate, which is lower than the rate charged to the end customers. The difference between these two rates is what pays for the infrastructure that transmits the power. Paying anyone the same rate that they charge their customers is a losing proposition for the utility, and is therefore a subsidy for that power source. Now, I personally think renewable energy should be encouraged, and subsidies are necessary. But I do see the utility's point in wanting to make a profit. I just don't think the utility shoulder the entire burden of providing that subsidy. It should be all of us - that is - a societal subsidy. After all, we are already subsidizing the fossil fuel industry in various ways, including enduring the negative effects of oil spills, polluted air, ground water, and climate change. A subsidy for renewable energy - such as buying back generated power at the retail rate - is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to what needs to change.

 

[SimplyMe]

I'll play the Devil's Advocate here and suggest that the energy company has a valid concern that as more people take up solar, their income would fall. Just as it would for my local greengrocer if I started growing my own veg. But...that's capitalism for you. If you have something I want, I'll be prepared to buy it from you at a reasonable rate. If I don't need it I won't pay for it.

And unless you have a decent battery and maybe a generator, then it's impractical to come off the grid completely. So it's fair and reasonable for a company that supplies electricity to your property for some of the time to charge you for the infrastructure. And the amount that you pay should reflect the amount that you use. So what they pay you for a kiloWatt of energy is going to be less that what you pay them. It should be the cost of the power less your share of the cost of maintaining the infrastructure.

Digging into the figures in this report shows that amount to be around 40%: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjClbfyw8z1AhWKPpQKHVVDBBUQFnoECAMQAQ&url=https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-08/Australia%27s%20Household%20Infrastructure%20Bill.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0D1oB1yn5u9LA85QIzylan.

So if you pay $1 per unit for incoming electricity then it might be reasonable for the supplier to pay you 60c for anything that you generate.

Then the energy company should charge the rates they feel are proper. The issue with your argument is that it is the legislature setting the rates, not the utility.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Then the energy company should charge the rates they feel are proper. The issue with your argument is that it is the legislature setting the rates, not the utility.

Utilities are highly regulated, so I doubt the companies really have any freedom on this. The 'net metering' rules are handled at the state level, so legislation is appropriate. The question is whether the new rules should shave off 10% to help cushion the industry as solar becomes more popular, or 75% as this bill would do. The latter is severe enough that it seems likely to destroy the future of the home solar market in the state, because it would take too long to pay off as an investment.

 

[Pommer]

Goliath hires a lawyer…

 

[iluvatar5150]

Got to love it when the party that loves talking about the free market imposes artificial limits on that market.

There's nothing "free market" about either side of this equation. Having an imposed monopoly with price controls isn't "free market," nor are subsidies for building power generation capacity of any sort.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Another thing to keep in mind about the 75% cut in the sellback rate is that it only applies to excess energy generated. If a homeowner with rooftop solar has a air conditioner or other electrical demands that coincide with the time he is generating power, then all the power that he consumes from his own rooftop solar is automatically bringing him 100% of the retail rate for power. It is power that he would otherwise have had to pay the retail rate for and now he pays nothing. Since most of the electrical demands in Florida residences are for air conditioning, and the demand is the highest when the sun is shining the brightest, quite a bit of the power generated from the roof will bring the owner 100% of the benefit. So the only time they sell their power at at the discount price is when they are generating more power than they currently need at that instant.