The "Sunshine State"? I don't think so...

[Dortreo]

What gives with the governor and legislature of Florida? They are actively discouraging solar power in Florida by reducing and eventually eliminating net metering, which allows consumers to sell electricity back to the utility company.

The bill was literally drafted by and lobbied for by Florida Power & Light. I'm not sure why they would actively oppose solar energy, when they already make a profit at current net metering rates.

In other news, Florida is about to be invaded by huge parachuting spiders.

 

[hydbob]

What gives with the governor and legislature of Florida? They are actively discouraging solar power in Florida by reducing and eventually eliminating net metering, which allows consumers to sell electricity back to the utility company.

The bill was literally drafted by and lobbied for by Florida Power & Light. I'm not sure why they would actively oppose solar energy, when they already make a profit at current net metering rates.

In other news, Florida is about to be invaded by huge parachuting spiders.

Because more money

 

[MPawelek]

American politics at its finest.

 

[Tim-in-CA]

This being done for the benefit of the power companies and to "Own the Libs"

 

[hydbob]

This being done for the benefit of the power companies and to "Own the Libs"

Haha, except California is trying to do the same crap

 

[Tim-in-CA]

Haha, except California is trying to do the same crap

Yup, and fortunately that was put on indefinite hold. Never even got to the point that the Governor would step in, now if we got a Desantis-like Governor, all bets are off! But agree, Electric companies are very anti-solar.

 

[MikeTz]

The proposed law would require the PSC to set the price of solar energy at the utilities' "avoided cost," the amount it would have cost the utility to purchase or produce the energy itself.

 

[mnewber1]

It's all lobbying by different companies who see more profit in non-efficient energy methods. Hell, the former believed windmills gave you cancer.

 

[stevelitchfieldpark]

Almost all states both Republican and Democratic are now anti solar by reducing the credits for excess energy and some states are even charging a monthly fee around $50 for having solar energy

 

[hydbob]

Almost all states both Republican and Democratic are now anti solar by reducing the credits for excess energy and some states are even charging a monthly fee around $50 for having solar energy

It's almost as if political party doesn't matter when there is money involved...

 

[hmp10]

First, let me say that I'm no fan of Ron DeSantis, our Statehouse, and their brand of politics. However, there are some arguments on the side of Florida Power & Light.

FP&L shut down its last coal-fired plant a couple of years ago. It now generates power by natural gas, nuclear, and solar. It also has one of the most ambitious programs of solar farm expansion in the U.S.

In urban areas, many residents live in dense gated and high-rise communities where there is little room for solar installations. (Due to its long rainy season and frequent cloud cover, Florida's sun index is only middling, meaning solar arrays have to be quite large to power a house fully.) This means a lot of solar arrays are installed in less dense areas, where miles of power lines are still required to cover relatively few users, including those users whose solar arrays do not cover 100% of their needs. These lines have to be installed and maintained even as the solar installations mean fewer paying customers per mile of transmission line.

Also, FP&L has to continue the heavy investment to provide gas- and nuclear-generated power to dense populations centers that will never be able to get enough power through at-residence solar arrays.

You could correctly argue that at-home solar arrays are a way for FP&L to get more solar array service into their grid. But when the extended solar grid cannot produce sufficient power during our long rainy spells, FP&L still has to maintain and operate gas- and nuclear-fired plants with sufficient capacity to replace the lost solar power. To keep rates down for the large Florida population that cannot get power from at-home solar, FP&L needs to keep as many paying customers on the grid as possible.

I think there are valid arguments on both sides of this issue. While FP&L obviously favors the side of the argument that best serves its interests, it is not exactly evil or rapacious to put that side forward.

 

[DeaneG]

Net metering reimbursement rates for solar will continue to erode during peak solar generation hours due to the amount of solar power being installed. California is grappling with this now with a proposed huge reduction in solar net metered reimbursement proposed by the California Public Utilities Commission, working against growing state mandates for further installation of solar power for new construction. The two state organizations apparently have not been talking to each other and the governor has stepped in to untangle it. Some countries with large residential solar capacity have experienced negative rates for electricity during solar peak times - you get paid to use power during peak times. I think many areas in the US are headed in this direction.

 

[Dortreo]

First, let me say that I'm no fan of Ron DeSantis, our Statehouse, and their brand of politics. However, there are some arguments on the side of Florida Power & Light.

FP&L shut down its last coal-fired plant a couple of years ago. It now generates power by natural gas, nuclear, and solar. It also has one of the most ambitious programs of solar farm expansion in the U.S.

In urban areas, many residents live in dense gated and high-rise communities where there is little room for solar installations. (Due to its long rainy season and frequent cloud cover, Florida's sun index is only middling, meaning solar arrays have to be quite large to power a house fully.) This means a lot of solar arrays are installed in less dense areas, where miles of power lines are still required to cover relatively few users, including those users whose solar arrays do not cover 100% of their needs. These lines have to be installed and maintained even as the solar installations mean fewer paying customers per mile of transmission line.

Also, FP&L has to continue the heavy investment to provide gas- and nuclear-generated power to dense populations centers that will never be able to get enough power through at-residence solar arrays.

You could correctly argue that at-home solar arrays are a way for FP&L to get more solar array service into their grid. But when the extended solar grid cannot produce sufficient power during our long rainy spells, FP&L still has to maintain and operate gas- and nuclear-fired plants with sufficient capacity to replace the lost solar power. To keep rates down for the large Florida population that cannot get power from at-home solar, FP&L needs to keep as many paying customers on the grid as possible.

I think there are valid arguments on both sides of this issue. While FP&L obviously favors the side of the argument that best serves its interests, it is not exactly evil or rapacious to put that side forward.

Thanks! I didn't realize the FP&L position that non-solar customers were subsidizing solar ones has some basis. If solar and energy storage became efficient and ubiquitous enough, it could provide a path for FP&L to become more of an energy broker (at a profit of course) between solar and non-solar customers. But the path to get there will be tough.

 

[hydbob]

Thanks! I didn't realize the FP&L position that non-solar customers were subsidizing solar ones has some basis. If solar and energy storage became efficient and ubiquitous enough, it could provide a path for FP&L to become more of an energy broker (at a profit of course) between solar and non-solar customers. But the path to get there will be tough.

That's pretty much par for the course with most utilities I suspect. It's a way to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. But there needs to be a compromise as the change to net metering is too much in the other direction. For SCE a grid connection fee increase makes sense and for my particular city the minimum electricity bill I could possibly have every month is around $75.

 

[SDHacker]

If electricity is still regulated in your state, the utility is guaranteed a set rate of return on infrastructure projects. Building a power plant is a money maker for them. Whatever they sink into the plant as a capital cost plus the cost of running/maintaining it is returned to them along with a guaranteed profit. Build more plants, make more money. Solar customers take that profit away from them because they remove the need to build more power plants.

As @Sandvinsd pointed out in another thread, peak cost for electricity for SDGE was during the business day on weekdays and no peak cost tier during the weekend (because most office buildings weren't occupied) but peak is now during the evening and early night. 20 years ago, SDGE would call our data center and request that we fire up our huge diesel generators during the day when they forecasted they would be short of electricity. Now, solar, along with other sources, generates more electricity than is required during sunny hours even though that is when the most electricity is being consumed. So SDGE changed peak hours to after the sun goes down due to the loss of solar generated electricity. If there is a shortage of electricity, it is now during the evening. Why is there a shortfall when there wasn't before? Because the CPUC wouldn't allow companies to build new polluting power plants (namely natural gas) and the deregulation of electricity caused all the public utilities to sell their power plants (no more guaranteed profit so too risky to hang onto them).

What solar customers provide non-solar customers is cost avoidance. If rooftop solar wasn't eliminating or reducing demand from all these homes/businesses/schools, we would be paying for additional electric generation facilities and importation of electricity along with higher rates for that power. Solar customers should pay a MINIMAL grid maintenance fee but not the outrageous ones proposed by the utilities.

I've had solar for 12 years - the solar company I went with aimed to keep you in the lowest cost tier or bring the bill down to 0. But there were people that were installing way more than they needed thinking they would make money selling power back to the utility. If NEM is to be changed, I would be in favor of reimbursing at retail rate until your cost is 0 (except for the grid charge) - then all excess is reimbursed at wholesale rate.