Florida Voters Turn Out Lights On Solar Amendment

November 9, 2016

A controversial solar-energy ballot initiative fell short short of the 60 percent voter approval it needed Tuesday, concluding for now one of the most-expensive constitutional amendment campaigns in Florida history.

Opponents who argued the amendment would hinder the development of alternative energy in Florida, celebrated the defeat of the measure, known as Amendment 1, as most counties continued posting results. As of 9:30 p.m., the amendment had received support of about 51 percent of voters — far below the 60 percent threshold, according to the state Division of Elections website.

Tory Perfetti, chairman of the opposition group Floridians for Solar Choice and director of Conservatives for Energy Freedom, called the vote a “victory for energy freedom.”

“We defeated one of the most egregious and underhanded attempts at voter manipulation in this state’s history,” Perfetti said in a prepared statement.

“The failure of Amendment 1 is the clearest signal yet that Floridians want more access to clean solar energy,” said Aliki Moncrief, Executive Director, Florida Conservation Voters.

Consumers for Smart Solar, a utility-backed group that spearheaded the proposal, didn’t immediately comment.

The state’s four major private utilities — Florida Power & Light, Duke Energy, Tampa Electric Co. and Gulf Power — collectively spent more than $20.2 million on the proposal, which sought to place existing regulations regarding solar energy into the state Constitution.

Powered by the utility money, Consumers for Smart Solar spent at least $25.47 million to get the measure on the ballot and to advertise and campaign for the amendment, which it said would protect consumers.

But critics contended the measure could lead to “discriminatory charges” against rooftop solar users, as the ballot language said that people who haven’t installed solar on their property “are not required to subsidize the costs of backup power and electric grid access to those who do.”

Contending the measure was purposely deceptive, the Florida Solar Energy Industries Association and the group Floridians for Solar Choice failed last week to get the state’s Supreme Court to strike down the initiative.

The groups had pinned their argument on a tape that included comments by Sal Nuzzo, vice president of policy at the James Madison Institute. On the tape, first reported by the Miami Herald, Nuzzo described how to use a “little bit of political jiu-jitsu” in promoting solar to win support for desired changes in policy.

The court had approved the ballot language for the amendment 4-3 in March.

Consumers for Smart Solar called the lawsuit “frivolous” and a “political stunt” intended to drum up last minute media attention for their anti-Amendment 1 campaign.

Meanwhile, the Tallahassee-based James Madison Institute asserted that Nuzzo misspoke. Consumers for Smart Solar said the James Madison Institute wasn’t involved in planning or drafting the proposed constitutional amendment.

The Consumers for Smart Solar amendment was introduced last year after Floridians for Solar Choice launched a petition drive for its own ballot initiative that sought to ease regulations and allow businesses to generate and sell up to two megawatts of solar power to customers on the same or neighboring properties.

After failing to collect the needed signatures to get on this year’s ballot, Floridians for Solar Choice is eyeing the 2018 election for its proposal.

“The millions of dollars in slick ad buys and glossy mailers did not win the day as opponents of Amendment 1 successfully harnessed social and earned media to educate Floridians about the true intent of this deceptive proposal while tapping a vast network of organizations, solar businesses and supporters who remain committed to growing — not restricting — Florida’s solar industry,” Floridians for Solar Choice said in a release Tuesday.

The spending on the amendment approached the $28.65 million the trial lawyer-backed Floridians for Patient Protection effort spent in 2004 pushing ballot initiatives opposed by the Florida Medical Association.

Consumers for Smart Solar pointed to high advertising costs, bolstered by Florida’s place as a key battleground state in the presidential election, for driving its spending.

by Jim Turner, The News Service of Florida

Comments

7 Responses to “Florida Voters Turn Out Lights On Solar Amendment”

  1. jeeperman on November 10th, 2016 11:29 am

    The “subsidies” the power companies were talking about is the grant money and incentives to install solar panels from the state of Florida.
    The power companies are forced to fund those programs.
    The power companies are also forced to pay for access electricity generated by it’s customers via solar.
    But only at a wholesale rate, not the retail rate you pay them.

  2. Terry on November 10th, 2016 9:38 am

    The statements made are very true if you follow the money. The downside to this is that the power companies will all go to the PSC to change how they buy excess power from people and many other measures. They stand to win since they have so much political money set in lobbyist who do nothing but make sure the State political leaders do as they need done. The PSC is all political so money drives it. It is a great win but now we sit back and see what the cost of the win will be.

  3. Bill M. on November 10th, 2016 8:47 am

    Glad all of these posters could see through the power monopoly lies! Now about the murder of Jake Horton and several other retired power executives, too bad we can’t see the great articles the Atlanta Constitution ran about how the Southern Mafia has used their power to manipulate politics and commit crimes.

  4. Jon on November 9th, 2016 6:40 pm

    The power companies used a lot of word play. Subsidy, in their terms. is buying power back from those who have solar to spare at the same price they sell it for cutting in to their profit.

  5. jeeperman on November 9th, 2016 11:30 am

    And now the power companies will ask the PSC to let them collect the $26 million they spent on this scam from their customers.

  6. Mimi on November 9th, 2016 10:46 am

    I completely agree with Kate which is why I voted NO on this amendment. It read nice but all of the action behind the scenes were troublesome.

  7. Kate on November 9th, 2016 7:48 am

    Thank God some had reason in their minds this election cycle. When power companies are spending that much of the money we pay them for power, you know something is fishy and very costly to your pocket.

Written by William Reynolds · Filed Under News