Florida Amendment #1 BEWARE and VOTE NO

[n8xwb]

Amendment 1 is primarily bankrolled by Florida’s big power companies and promoted by a group calling itself Consumers for Smart Solar. While the title, “Rights of Electricity Consumers Regarding Solar Energy Choice” sounds like a great thing for solar in Florida, let’s be clear: Amendment 1 will not promote solar, it will block the sun.
“Let pro-solar energy consumers beware” warned Supreme Court Justice Barbara Pariente about Amendment 1 back in March. She said the amendment is “masquerading” as a pro-solar energy initiative and labeled it a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.”
Here’s three reasons to be wary of Amendment 1:

Amendment 1 is funded by Florida’s big utilities to protect their monopoly markets and limit customer-owned solar.

Amendment 1 paves the way for barriers that would penalize solar customers.

Amendment 1 misleads Florida voters by promising rights and protections that Florida citizens already have!

BTW, I spoke with a SECO representative and he indicated that SECO did not support the amendment....I presume because SECO is a co-op and is not a for profit power company.

[rubicon]

Amendment 1 is primarily bankrolled by Florida’s big power companies and promoted by a group calling itself Consumers for Smart Solar. While the title, “Rights of Electricity Consumers Regarding Solar Energy Choice” sounds like a great thing for solar in Florida, let’s be clear: Amendment 1 will not promote solar, it will block the sun.
“Let pro-solar energy consumers beware” warned Supreme Court Justice Barbara Pariente about Amendment 1 back in March. She said the amendment is “masquerading” as a pro-solar energy initiative and labeled it a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.”
Here’s three reasons to be wary of Amendment 1:

Amendment 1 is funded by Florida’s big utilities to protect their monopoly markets and limit customer-owned solar.

Amendment 1 paves the way for barriers that would penalize solar customers.

Amendment 1 misleads Florida voters by promising rights and protections that Florida citizens already have!

BTW, I spoke with a SECO representative and he indicated that SECO did not support the amendment....I presume because SECO is a co-op and is not a for profit power company.

What does this amendment say concerning tax credits for buying solar? what does this amendment say concerning solar owners right to sell excess power back to utilities?

[kansasr]

Nothing. It basically places protections for utility companies in our state constitution.

[Johnd]

I’m voting yes on Amendment #1 because it adds protections for people like me who will not install solar appliances and do not want to monetarily support people who do. There is no way for solar to compete without the “state” coercing citizens to subsidize solar. The solar industry would probably be better off without subsidies as they would then marshal the resources necessary for technological breakthroughs that may make them competitive.

The opponents 3 talking points are vague. Point 1 states in part the amendment will “limit customer-owned solar”. Please explain how. Point 2 mentions “barriers that would penalize solar customers”. What barriers? Point 3 is partially correct. The right of solar activists to own or lease solar energy equipment for personal use is already existing law. But the right of ensuring that residents who do not produce solar energy can abstain from subsidizing its production is not presently protected.

[n8xwb]

If you think voting yes gives you any protection, you are sorely mistaken. When was the last time you got a good deal or lower rates from a major utility company?? Perhaps, like me you are fortunate to have SECO as your electric power provider.

As for subsidies, the state of Florida gives no subsidies that I know of to folks that install solar panels.

If anything, installation of privately owned panels takes pressure off the grid at peak times, during the day when energy is needed to run air conditioners, etc.

[NYGUY]

Amendment #1 should have been called the "Big Energy Income Security Act". I have already voted and voted NO!!

[Dbinac]

I voted no also. Hope many people vote no also.

[NavyNJ]

I’m voting yes on Amendment #1 because it adds protections for people like me who will not install solar appliances and do not want to monetarily support people who do. There is no way for solar to compete without the “state” coercing citizens to subsidize solar. The solar industry would probably be better off without subsidies as they would then marshal the resources necessary for technological breakthroughs that may make them competitive.

The opponents 3 talking points are vague. Point 1 states in part the amendment will “limit customer-owned solar”. Please explain how. Point 2 mentions “barriers that would penalize solar customers”. What barriers? Point 3 is partially correct. The right of solar activists to own or lease solar energy equipment for personal use is already existing law. But the right of ensuring that residents who do not produce solar energy can abstain from subsidizing its production is not presently protected.

Well, I hate to say it.....but in this case - You're wrong. To get answers to your questions, take a few minutes and peruse the info presented at the site shown at the link below. I think you should find the answers to your questions, and then some, if you give it careful review. I know I was scratching my head more than a little at how the proponent group financing (Consumers For Smart Solar) was primarily (Top 5 donors) comprised of Fla. Power Companies!!

In the end, you need to decide, of course.....but doing so without at least availing yourself of the contents of this web site would be ill advised.

Florida Solar Energy Subsidies and Personal Solar Use, Amendment 1 (2016) - Ballotpedia (https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Solar_Energy_Subsidies_and_Personal_Solar_ Use,_Amendment_1_(2016))

[outlaw]

Well, I hate to say it.....but in this case - You're wrong. To get answers to your questions, take a few minutes and peruse the info presented at the site shown at the link below. I think you should find the answers to your questions, and then some, if you give it careful review. I know I was scratching my head more than a little at how the proponent group financing (Consumers For Smart Solar) was primarily (Top 5 donors) comprised of Fla. Power Companies!!

In the end, you need to decide, of course.....but doing so without at least availing yourself of the contents of this web site would be ill advised.

Florida Solar Energy Subsidies and Personal Solar Use, Amendment 1 (2016) - Ballotpedia (https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Solar_Energy_Subsidies_and_Personal_Solar_ Use,_Amendment_1_(2016))

I read your reference. It states that amendment 1 allows people to have solar, BUT NOT at the expense of everyone else being required to subsidize their solar. What's wrong with that? BTW, I don't think a constitution should be used for such things no matter what the subject is, such as bullet train funding, etc.

[Henryk]

Amendment 1 is a total SCAM by the utility companies.

Why in the world would be need a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to deal with solar power. Regulations, maybe, but even then NOT from the utility thieves.

NO CONSITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ON ENERGY!

VOTE NO on Amendment 1. Don't let the utility jerks fool you.

[biker1]

A point-by-point discussion of what the Amendment includes, including the pros and cons of each, would probably make more sense than a blanket condemnation void of any facts.

Amendment 1 is a total SCAM by the utility companies.

Why in the world would be need a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to deal with solar power. Regulations, maybe, but even then NOT from the utility thieves.

NO CONSITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ON ENERGY!

VOTE NO on Amendment 1. Don't let the utility jerks fool you.

[Henryk]

I read your reference. It states that amendment 1 allows people to have solar, BUT NOT at the expense of everyone else being required to subsidize their solar. What's wrong with that? BTW, I don't think a constitution should be used for such things no matter what the subject is, such as bullet train funding, etc.

I'm voting NO. You may wish to read this:
http://www.**************.com/know-truth-amendments-state-ballot/

How do you know the truth about amendments on state ballot?

BY MARV BALOUSEK OCTOBER 10, 20169 COMMENTS copied from ************** dot com

A television commercial for a solar energy constitutional amendment on the Nov. 8 ballot says it would bring solar energy to Florida. Another commercial for a marijuana amendment says it would make the drug widely available as candy.

Both commercials are misleading, according to Beth Hicks of The Villages/Tri-County League of Women Voters.

Hicks offered details about four proposed amendments in a presentation Monday to The Villages Civil Discourse Club at the Savannah Center.

Instead of bringing solar energy to Florida, the amendment, supported by several utility companies, actually would restrict future solar technology innovations such as storing energy, she said. Opponents include environmental groups and the League of Women Voters.

“The biggest problem with solar right now is storing it,” Hicks said. “If we put this amendment into the constitution, it will lock in where we are right now. If you vote no, you are not voting no to solar power in Florida.”

The marijuana amendment would not make the drug available wherever candy is sold, as implied by the commercial. She said it would be available only with a medical prescription to people with debilitating medical conditions such as cancer, epilepsy, AIDS, Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis.

Medical marijuana treatment centers would be established to dispense the drug.

“Chronic pain is not one of the debilitating conditions,” Hicks said. “It is medical and it will not be sold in pot shops.”

Medical marijuana is legal in 25 states while three states, Colorado, Oregon and Washington, allow recreational use, she said.

The amendment is a tightened-up version of a similar 2014 amendment which came 2 percent short of the 60 percent majority needed for passage. Supporters include labor unions, the Florida Democratic Party and the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. Opponents include the Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Medical Association.

A Florida law enacted two years ago allows a medical marijuana extract to be used by children with seizures.

Two other ballot amendments deal with property tax exemptions.

Amendment 3 would authorize the Legislature to exempt first responders such as police officers and firefighters who are permanently disabled from injuries they received in the line of duty. The constitution already provides exemptions for spouses of first responders who die in the line of duty.

The final proposed amendment would ensure that low-income seniors do not lose a special property tax exemption even if their home values rise above a $250,000 threshold.

Current law allows seniors over age 65 with annual incomes below about $29,000 who have lived in their homes for at least 20 years to qualify for the exemption. But they now lose the exemption if their home values rise above the threshold.

Hicks said 128 Lake County homeowners and none in Marion or Sumter counties qualify for the exemption.

She said property tax exemptions require passage as constitutional amendments and cannot be granted through legislation.

Constitutional amendments can be initiated by the Legislature or as a citizen initiative, which requires at least 600,000 petition signatures collected from at least seven different counties.

The state Constitutional Review Committee, which meets every 20 years, also can propose amendments. The committee’s next meeting is in 2017.

[Henryk]

I'm voting NO. You may wish to read this:
http://www.**************.com/know-truth-amendments-state-ballot/

http: // www.**************.com/know-truth-amendments-state-ballot/

[rubicon]

http: // www.**************.com/know-truth-amendments-state-ballot/

Please provide the website so that we may have an opportunity to read for ourselves

[rubicon]

I'm voting NO. You may wish to read this:
http://www.**************.com/know-truth-amendments-state-ballot/

How do you know the truth about amendments on state ballot?

BY MARV BALOUSEK OCTOBER 10, 20169 COMMENTS copied from ************** dot com

A television commercial for a solar energy constitutional amendment on the Nov. 8 ballot says it would bring solar energy to Florida. Another commercial for a marijuana amendment says it would make the drug widely available as candy.

Both commercials are misleading, according to Beth Hicks of The Villages/Tri-County League of Women Voters.

Hicks offered details about four proposed amendments in a presentation Monday to The Villages Civil Discourse Club at the Savannah Center.

Instead of bringing solar energy to Florida, the amendment, supported by several utility companies, actually would restrict future solar technology innovations such as storing energy, she said. Opponents include environmental groups and the League of Women Voters.

“The biggest problem with solar right now is storing it,” Hicks said. “If we put this amendment into the constitution, it will lock in where we are right now. If you vote no, you are not voting no to solar power in Florida.”

The marijuana amendment would not make the drug available wherever candy is sold, as implied by the commercial. She said it would be available only with a medical prescription to people with debilitating medical conditions such as cancer, epilepsy, AIDS, Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis.

Medical marijuana treatment centers would be established to dispense the drug.

“Chronic pain is not one of the debilitating conditions,” Hicks said. “It is medical and it will not be sold in pot shops.”

Medical marijuana is legal in 25 states while three states, Colorado, Oregon and Washington, allow recreational use, she said.

The amendment is a tightened-up version of a similar 2014 amendment which came 2 percent short of the 60 percent majority needed for passage. Supporters include labor unions, the Florida Democratic Party and the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. Opponents include the Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Medical Association.

A Florida law enacted two years ago allows a medical marijuana extract to be used by children with seizures.

Two other ballot amendments deal with property tax exemptions.

Amendment 3 would authorize the Legislature to exempt first responders such as police officers and firefighters who are permanently disabled from injuries they received in the line of duty. The constitution already provides exemptions for spouses of first responders who die in the line of duty.

The final proposed amendment would ensure that low-income seniors do not lose a special property tax exemption even if their home values rise above a $250,000 threshold.

Current law allows seniors over age 65 with annual incomes below about $29,000 who have lived in their homes for at least 20 years to qualify for the exemption. But they now lose the exemption if their home values rise above the threshold.

Hicks said 128 Lake County homeowners and none in Marion or Sumter counties qualify for the exemption.

She said property tax exemptions require passage as constitutional amendments and cannot be granted through legislation.

Constitutional amendments can be initiated by the Legislature or as a citizen initiative, which requires at least 600,000 petition signatures collected from at least seven different counties.

The state Constitutional Review Committee, which meets every 20 years, also can propose amendments. The committee’s next meeting is in 2017.

Why would environmental groups oppose solar energy? bottom line for me is I do not want to subsidize another taxpayers choices be it solar panels on their homes or buying Telsa autos. and i do not want to subsidize corporation such as Telsa and those who make claim via Import/Export laws. Sufficient is to say I'm getting sick of the government abuses and their lack of leadership as to personal and corporate welfare Enough is enough

Isn't the real reason for the medical marijuana amendment a basis to pave the way for legalizing recreational marijuana usage? The issue for medical marijuana is an emotional one and proponents leads voters to believe that it is first altruistic and secondly the only solution to alleviate symptoms for the so called target illnesses. Come on legalizing recreational marijuana means billions to a few people follow the money and you identify each of them.

the remaining two amendments appear to benefit people in real need

[outlaw]

why would environmental groups oppose solar energy? Bottom line for me is i do not want to subsidize another taxpayers choices be it solar panels on their homes or buying telsa autos. And i do not want to subsidize corporation such as telsa and those who make claim via import/export laws. Sufficient is to say i'm getting sick of the government abuses and their lack of leadership as to personal and corporate welfare enough is enough

isn't the real reason for the medical marijuana amendment a basis to pave the way for legalizing recreational marijuana usage? The issue for medical marijuana is an emotional one and proponents leads voters to believe that it is first altruistic and secondly the only solution to alleviate symptoms for the so called target illnesses. Come on legalizing recreational marijuana means billions to a few people follow the money and you identify each of them.

The remaining two amendments appear to benefit people in real need

exactly!

[ColdNoMore]

Nothing. It basically places protections for utility companies in our state constitution.
If you think voting yes gives you any protection, you are sorely mistaken. When was the last time you got a good deal or lower rates from a major utility company?? Perhaps, like me you are fortunate to have SECO as your electric power provider.

As for subsidies, the state of Florida gives no subsidies that I know of to folks that install solar panels.

If anything, installation of privately owned panels takes pressure off the grid at peak times, during the day when energy is needed to run air conditioners, etc.
Amendment #1 should have been called the "Big Energy Income Security Act". I have already voted and voted NO!!
I voted no also. Hope many people vote no also.


:agree:...:agree:...:agree:...:agree:

[rubicon]

If you think voting yes gives you any protection, you are sorely mistaken. When was the last time you got a good deal or lower rates from a major utility company?? Perhaps, like me you are fortunate to have SECO as your electric power provider.

As for subsidies, the state of Florida gives no subsidies that I know of to folks that install solar panels.

If anything, installation of privately owned panels takes pressure off the grid at peak times, during the day when energy is needed to run air conditioners, etc.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but didn't Amendment 4 voted on in August and approved provide for solar subsidies and sell backs?

The big energy vote is coming in 2018. My concern is the long term game plan being played by both utilities and environmentalists and others.

As I analyze Amendment 1 my thoughts go beyond what the proposal states for the vote in November. I wonder what long term percussions may result for either a yes or no vote. What exactly does it mean? Does a vote either way place consumers in a Catch 22 down the road? There has always been caution when it comes to government but since 2008 it seems government by both parties have breached voters trust time and time again. So I do not trust any politician, policy proposal, etc and I do not trust the media. Its time voters did their due diligence and careful consider every proposal. I mean we learned the devastating and costly consequences of what "you have to pass it to know what's in it" We need to move like a hegefox expanding our search to determine the single purpose for these amendments

Personal Best Regards:

[outlaw]

I don't know how many of you have looked at the Florida constitution, but it is a mess. The Index alone is 20 pages!! It has amendments to protect pregnant pigs, bullet trains, tobacco smoke, tobacco education and smoking prevention programs, slot machines, county specific issues, bonds for outdoor recreation, homestead exemptions, and on and on. What a mess. Why do we even have a legislature in Florida? This is the end result of special interest activism abusing the political process; a 78-page constitution.

[JourneyOfLife]

Red Flag 1.... If a ballot initiative is worded in a way to confuse "some" voters (trick them)!

Red Flag 2.... When an established industry attempts to use legislation to thwart competition!

Red Flag 3.... Amendment to the State Constitution!!!!! Really??? That sort of permanency is, in itself, alarming.

Red Flag 4.... When a large Monopoly tries to "Justify" Legislation that protects them, by claiming they are protecting you!!!

This piece of legislation looks more like Monopolies trying to have Industry Protection written into the State Constitution and to (in practical terms) eliminate emerging technology and future competition.... in a permanent manner!

Even if one is against Solar or subsidies for it; Lesser legislation would probably be more appropriate than an Amendment to the State Constitution! IOW, Legislation that allow more flexibility in the future... because "No One" can predict the future!

Changes to the state constitution, from the "Individual Consumers Perspective" just seems excessive, with the potential for "Unknown" or "Unintended" negative future consequences to "all consumers". IOW... they want to "Write it in STONE" and make it "Close To" permanent and unalterable!

This is one of those... Its not what you know, that will likely hurt you. Its what you "do not" know that "might very well" hurt you!

Here is what an Amendment to the State Constitution would do: It would send a message to entrepreneurs, existing businesses and investors in alternate energy : "Don't Bother Even Trying to Innovate... You already lost the battle and surely will lose!"

We do not live in Fl... But considering our retirement options. If I were a FL voter, I would reject "An Amendment". If they come back with different legislation later that allows more future flexibility (less than an amendment)... I would look at it again and consider it.


It appears this article tries to give a balanced POV. Proposed Florida amendments would set solar energy policy (http://www.bradenton.com/news/local/article94661792.html)

[justjim]

I'm amazed at the conspiracy theories that people imagine without looking at the facts. It seems that some are just "no" on everything. Fore!

[ColdNoMore]

Red Flag 1.... If a ballot initiative is worded in a way to confuse "some" voters (trick them)!

Red Flag 2.... When an established industry attempts to use legislation to thwart competition!

Red Flag 3.... Amendment to the State Constitution!!!!! Really??? That sort of permanency is, in itself, alarming.

Red Flag 4.... When a large Monopoly tries to "Justify" Legislation that protects them, by claiming they are protecting you!!!

This piece of legislation looks more like Monopolies trying to have Industry Protection written into the State Constitution and to (in practical terms) eliminate emerging technology and future competition.... in a permanent manner!

Even if one is against Solar or subsidies for it; Lesser legislation would probably be more appropriate than an Amendment to the State Constitution! IOW, Legislation that allow more flexibility in the future... because "No One" can predict the future!

Changes to the state constitution, from the "Individual Consumers Perspective" just seems excessive, with the potential for "Unknown" or "Unintended" negative future consequences to "all consumers". IOW... they want to "Write it in STONE" and make it "Close To" permanent and unalterable!

This is one of those... Its not what you know, that will likely hurt you. Its what you "do not" know that "might very well" hurt you!

Here is what an Amendment to the State Constitution would do: It would send a message to entrepreneurs, existing businesses and investors in alternate energy : "Don't Bother Even Trying to Innovate... You already lost the battle and surely will lose!"

We do not live in Fl... But considering our retirement options. If I were a FL voter, I would reject "An Amendment". If they come back with different legislation later that allows more future flexibility (less than an amendment)... I would look at it again and consider it.


It appears this article tries to give a balanced POV. Proposed Florida amendments would set solar energy policy (http://www.bradenton.com/news/local/article94661792.html)

Excellent and dead on post. :thumbup:

[ColdNoMore]

I'm amazed at the conspiracy theories that people imagine without looking at the facts. It seems that some are just "no" on everything. Fore!

Not much of a 'conspiracy,' when the facts are laid out for all to see. :shrug:

[Johnd]

This is how I ended my first post on this subject.

"The opponents 3 talking points are vague. Point 1 states in part the amendment will “limit customer-owned solar”. Please explain how. Point 2 mentions “barriers that would penalize solar customers”. What barriers? Point 3 is partially correct. The right of solar activists to own or lease solar energy equipment for personal use is already existing law. But the right of ensuring that residents who do not produce solar energy can abstain from subsidizing its production is not presently protected."

Still waiting for the opponents to explain how anyone interested in solar power is "limited" or faces "barriers" from this amendment. Of course, other than the barrier of getting into my pocket to fund your activities.

[outlaw]

This is how I ended my first post on this subject.

"The opponents 3 talking points are vague. Point 1 states in part the amendment will “limit customer-owned solar”. Please explain how. Point 2 mentions “barriers that would penalize solar customers”. What barriers? Point 3 is partially correct. The right of solar activists to own or lease solar energy equipment for personal use is already existing law. But the right of ensuring that residents who do not produce solar energy can abstain from subsidizing its production is not presently protected."

Still waiting for the opponents to explain how anyone interested in solar power is "limited" or faces "barriers" from this amendment. Of course, other than the barrier of getting into my pocket to fund your activities.

The amendment will also destroy our climate, will shorten our life span, will increase global migration...

[rubicon]

Red Flag 1.... If a ballot initiative is worded in a way to confuse "some" voters (trick them)!

Red Flag 2.... When an established industry attempts to use legislation to thwart competition!

Red Flag 3.... Amendment to the State Constitution!!!!! Really??? That sort of permanency is, in itself, alarming.

Red Flag 4.... When a large Monopoly tries to "Justify" Legislation that protects them, by claiming they are protecting you!!!

This piece of legislation looks more like Monopolies trying to have Industry Protection written into the State Constitution and to (in practical terms) eliminate emerging technology and future competition.... in a permanent manner!

Even if one is against Solar or subsidies for it; Lesser legislation would probably be more appropriate than an Amendment to the State Constitution! IOW, Legislation that allow more flexibility in the future... because "No One" can predict the future!

Changes to the state constitution, from the "Individual Consumers Perspective" just seems excessive, with the potential for "Unknown" or "Unintended" negative future consequences to "all consumers". IOW... they want to "Write it in STONE" and make it "Close To" permanent and unalterable!

This is one of those... Its not what you know, that will likely hurt you. Its what you "do not" know that "might very well" hurt you!

Here is what an Amendment to the State Constitution would do: It would send a message to entrepreneurs, existing businesses and investors in alternate energy : "Don't Bother Even Trying to Innovate... You already lost the battle and surely will lose!"

We do not live in Fl... But considering our retirement options. If I were a FL voter, I would reject "An Amendment". If they come back with different legislation later that allows more future flexibility (less than an amendment)... I would look at it again and consider it.


It appears this article tries to give a balanced POV. Proposed Florida amendments would set solar energy policy (http://www.bradenton.com/news/local/article94661792.html)

You ave done your due diligence...thank you

[GOJODO]

This was an excellent summary of this fraudulently misleading amendment language:
FLORIDIANS: VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 1!

This is not cut-and-paste. I spent nearly two hours researching this amendment myself. This is an important issue you should pay attention to.

This year, the incumbent power companies are trying to pass a misleading amendment (Amendment 1) called the "Florida Solar Energy Subsidies and Personal Solar Use Initiative". This amendment is being promoted as "Promoting solar in the Sunshine State". It does the opposite. It give the big power companies the ability to increase the cost - and even make it impossible - for you to install solar power on your homes.

If you have any doubt, just look at the three largest donors to the Political Action Committee supporting Amendment 1:

$5,737,000 Duke Energy
$5,495,000 Florida Power and Light Company
$3,037,347 Tampa Electric Company

Why would the power companies spend nearly $15m (of money from your power bills) to defend your rights? They're not. The fact is that the cost of solar power is rapidly falling below the cost of traditional utility power. The big utility companies are simply using Amendment 1 to defend their legacy business - instead of embracing change that has the potential to help all of us.

I highly recommend you vote no on Amendment 1, and you can learn more at http://about.floridiansolar.org

-Jonathan Taylor, Entrenext

Note: I do not work at or with Solar Power companies. I also have nothing against power companies. I just don't like it when companies try to fool me with misleading causes; and I support solar power because I feel it is required for our country to have a competitive, long term global advantage in power costs. For example, China spent over $90 billion on renewable energy (including Solar Power) in 2014 alone

[rubicon]

I see this dispute as one between utilities and third party vendors.

Third party vendors want to sell a lot of solar products and energy costs, and so they will act to shift as much of their financial burden and their solar customers to the public (taxpayers) .

I am sick of having other individual and corporations shifting their costs to me as a taxpayer.

In my view amendment #4 is a no vote and amendment #1 is a yes vote

[Johnd]

For the 3rd time, I ask the opponents of the amendment to explain exactly how solar activists are prevented from getting and installing solar materials. Nothing but the same tired phrases so far.

Vote yes if you don't want to be forced to subsidize other people's dreams of unicorns.

[Cathy H]

the technology of energy producing solar cell units is still evolving. recently Australian engineers developed (in the lab) a new very efficient solar cell using untried chemical layers within the cells that capture more energy. we should not try to legislate any restriction on this exciting technology as it may be our salvation some day

[ColdNoMore]

Sometimes I just have to shake my head...at the flaming hypocrisy I see. :ohdear:

Those who are opposed to a tax break for people who install solar (which is actually something very positive for the environment)...do so because they say they are against subsidies by taxpayers.

So how many of them DON'T currently use one of the biggest taxpayer funded subsidies around...the the 'Property Tax Exemption for Homestead Property?'

Heck, you don't even have to have a real homestead...or even to have been living here for a long amount of years to get it. :oops:

http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/property/brochures/pt113.pdf


The dirty little secret is that the big, for-profit power companies don't want solar to compete with them and they sure as heck don't want to pay the going rate to buy back excess solar power from consumers...so they are spending millions trying to obfuscate what is basically a subsidy to them.

Vote NO on Amendment 1. :thumbup:

[ColdNoMore]

This was an excellent summary of this fraudulently misleading amendment language:
FLORIDIANS: VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 1!

This is not cut-and-paste. I spent nearly two hours researching this amendment myself. This is an important issue you should pay attention to.

This year, the incumbent power companies are trying to pass a misleading amendment (Amendment 1) called the "Florida Solar Energy Subsidies and Personal Solar Use Initiative". This amendment is being promoted as "Promoting solar in the Sunshine State". It does the opposite. It give the big power companies the ability to increase the cost - and even make it impossible - for you to install solar power on your homes.

If you have any doubt, just look at the three largest donors to the Political Action Committee supporting Amendment 1:

$5,737,000 Duke Energy
$5,495,000 Florida Power and Light Company
$3,037,347 Tampa Electric Company

Why would the power companies spend nearly $15m (of money from your power bills) to defend your rights? They're not. The fact is that the cost of solar power is rapidly falling below the cost of traditional utility power. The big utility companies are simply using Amendment 1 to defend their legacy business - instead of embracing change that has the potential to help all of us.

I highly recommend you vote no on Amendment 1, and you can learn more at http://about.floridiansolar.org

-Jonathan Taylor, Entrenext

Note: I do not work at or with Solar Power companies. I also have nothing against power companies. I just don't like it when companies try to fool me with misleading causes; and I support solar power because I feel it is required for our country to have a competitive, long term global advantage in power costs. For example, China spent over $90 billion on renewable energy (including Solar Power) in 2014 alone

:BigApplause:...:BigApplause:...:BigApplause:

[rubicon]

Sometimes I just have to shake my head...at the flaming hypocrisy I see. :ohdear:

Those who are opposed to a tax break for people who install solar (which is actually something very positive for the environment)...do so because they say they are against subsidies by taxpayers.

So how many of them DON'T currently use one of the biggest taxpayer funded subsidies around...the the 'Property Tax Exemption for Homestead Property?'

Heck, you don't even have to have a real homestead...or even to have been living here for a long amount of years to get it. :oops:

http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/property/brochures/pt113.pdf


The dirty little secret is that the big, for-profit power companies don't want solar to compete with them and they sure as heck don't want to pay the going rate to buy back excess solar power from consumers...so they are spending millions trying to obfuscate what is basically a subsidy to them.

Vote NO on Amendment 1. :thumbup:

In the event that your comments were a result of my early post, don't make any assumptions about me. I am against all forms of tax credits , subsidies, etc. I believe we should all pay our own way. WHY? Because such tax loopholes end up being abused and fund people the loopholes never meant to fund. And because it often compromises true innovation. Telsa has never made a profit but government continues to fork over big tax dollars to both the Telsa which has never made a profit and consumers who are very capable of paying $70,000 to$100,000 + for a Telsa vehicle The EBIT Credit by IRS's own accounting is misapplied better than 24% of the time and they don't care.

However, as long as such tax loopholes are available you can't blame people for taking advantage, even Donald Trump.

Lux et Veritas

[buckscounty]

Amendment #1 should have been called the "Big Energy Income Security Act". I have already voted and voted NO!!

Good I am voting no.

[graciegirl]

I’m voting yes on Amendment #1 because it adds protections for people like me who will not install solar appliances and do not want to monetarily support people who do. There is no way for solar to compete without the “state” coercing citizens to subsidize solar. The solar industry would probably be better off without subsidies as they would then marshal the resources necessary for technological breakthroughs that may make them competitive.

The opponents 3 talking points are vague. Point 1 states in part the amendment will “limit customer-owned solar”. Please explain how. Point 2 mentions “barriers that would penalize solar customers”. What barriers? Point 3 is partially correct. The right of solar activists to own or lease solar energy equipment for personal use is already existing law. But the right of ensuring that residents who do not produce solar energy can abstain from subsidizing its production is not presently protected.

I agree.

[Yung Dum]

Those who vote yes must think oil and coal are the future. Think again. Why should the U.S.A. fall behind the rest of the world in future technology? Is this the American way? Progress is the American way. We have always led the world, why stop now? Vote yes if you must. But think about your grandchildren. Is this what they deserve? Think!

[graciegirl]

Those who vote yes must think oil and coal are the future. Think again. Why should the U.S.A. fall behind the rest of the world in future technology? Is this the American way? Progress is the American way. We have always led the world, why stop now? Vote yes if you must. But think about your grandchildren. Is this what they deserve? Think!

I saw that ad that was up for a short while that showed one of the candidates suggesting that the government get into the solar power business and manufacture solar panels. It would add jobs this candidate said, and we could beat Germany. That ad didn't last long. The ad showed thousands of solar panels being manufactured. I think it is a good idea but should be done by private enterprise, and purchased by people without government subsidies that come out of my pocket...I am a capitalist. I am a fiscal conservative. I have solar panels on my roof.

[ColdNoMore]

Those who vote yes must think oil and coal are the future. Think again. Why should the U.S.A. fall behind the rest of the world in future technology? Is this the American way? Progress is the American way. We have always led the world, why stop now? Vote yes if you must. But think about your grandchildren. Is this what they deserve? Think!

Excellent post and very astute. :thumbup:

[Xavier]

Forbes has an opinion as well. They call the amendment as "A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing". CLICK HERE (http://www.forbes.com/sites/curtissilver/2016/10/10/florida-amendment-1-solar-power/#66252bcc5fe5) All of you potential YES VOTERS should at least take the time to read this. Have you seen all of the expensive TV ads that the energy companies have produced and paid for? YIKES!! They aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts!

Xavier

[Madelaine Amee]

Forbes has an opinion as well. They call the amendment as "A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing". CLICK HERE (http://www.forbes.com/sites/curtissilver/2016/10/10/florida-amendment-1-solar-power/#66252bcc5fe5) All of you potential YES VOTERS should at least take the time to read this. Have you seen all of the expensive TV ads that the energy companies have produced and paid for? YIKES!! They aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts!

Xavier

Thank you for taking the time to link to this excellent and easy to understand article on solar in Florida.

[JourneyOfLife]

Have any of you read Amendment #1.

Is this it... the correct gov website?

Initiative Information (http://dos.elections.myflorida.com/initiatives/initdetail.asp?account=64817&seqnum=1)

[Mikeod]

It really is a win-win for the power companies. If it passes, they have it in as an amendment and they get the protection they desire. If it loses, they can say Floridians aren't that interested in solar.

[LitespeedRider]

I wonder at what point these people who are constantly professing the wonders of solar will take notice as to the pollution that is created in the manufacture and shipping of the panels. The eventual pollution when a panel is broken / taken out of service. The very serious limitations on the power generated (and stored in VERY toxic batteries for night time power) and so many other draw backs.

Solar is only part of a solution on our national power grid, a very small part at that. Coal and Oil also are not a solution - but, more nuke plants are spot on the money.

[Don Baldwin]

I wonder at what point these people who are constantly professing the wonders of solar will take notice as to the pollution that is created in the manufacture and shipping of the panels. The eventual pollution when a panel is broken / taken out of service. The very serious limitations on the power generated (and stored in VERY toxic batteries for night time power) and so many other draw backs.

Solar is only part of a solution on our national power grid, a very small part at that. Coal and Oil also are not a solution - but, more nuke plants are spot on the money.

Natural gas is the answer...it's clean and we have a LOT of it. You can scrub out the carbon.

[outlaw]

Natural gas is the answer...it's clean and we have a LOT of it. You can scrub out the carbon.

Do you mean carbon dioxide? If so, we can use much more CO2 in our atmosphere.

[Don Baldwin]

Do you mean carbon dioxide? If so, we can use much more CO2 in our atmosphere.

CO2 isn't a really big atmospheric warming contributor. Water vapor, humidity, clouds, are by far the largest contributor to heat retention.

It's scare propaganda to steal money from the taxpayer...borrowed money.

And yes, CO2 can be "scrubbed" from the exhaust lowering CO2 output significantly. NG is the cheapest most efficient, reliable source for electricity generation.

This amendment turns your "built into your house", part of the real estate value...into "personal property" like a car or boat. They'll be able to tax you as much as they want based on the "value" of your "personal" solar power array. It's a scam to get more tax dollars.

Vote for something that will actually help people, medical marijuana. It's a plant that God put here. It helps a lot of people.

[Henryk]

What does this amendment say concerning tax credits for buying solar? what does this amendment say concerning solar owners right to sell excess power back to utilities?

You truly need to read the summary yourself. Carefully. Among other things, any excess electricity you generate may be waste, not "sold back" to the utility. Besides, you could PASS A LAW. Does this need to be in the STATE CONSTITUTION? The CONSTITUTION??? Absolutely not.

I voted NO!

[buckscounty]

I checked into it and voted no today.

[Yung Dum]

If you think the oil, gas, and coal industries have your best interest at heart, vote yes on 1.
If you think drug companies and Sheldon Adelson have your best interest at heart, vote no on 2.
If you think about it, vote the opposite on both.

[Don Baldwin]

The real bad one was snuck through in Aug...that one changes how your solar equipment gets taxed. Removed from real estate tax and added to personal property tax...like a boat or car.

[outlaw]

I voted yes because it prevents the electric company from forcing me to subsidize the costs of the solar panel users. I voted no on medical marijuana because it is just a loophole for dopers.

[Rapscallion St Croix]

You can cut through the gobbledegook by determining who is for and who is against..I copied this from Ballotpedia and have not edited at all.

For

Jim Kallinger, former state representative and co-chair of Consumers for Smart Solar
Dick Batchelor, former state representative and co-chair of Consumers for Smart Solar
Julio Fuentes, a leader of the Consumers for Smart Solar coalition
Screven Watson, a leader of the Consumers for Smart Solar coalition
Billie J. Tucker, a leader of the Consumers for Smart Solar coalition
Matthew Carter II, a leader of the Consumers for Smart Solar coalition
Kevin Doyle, executive director of Consumer Energy Alliance - Florida

Organizations

The majority of support for Amendment 1 has been provided by electric utility companies.
60 Plus Association
PACE
National Black Chamber of Commerce
Florida Council for Safe Communities
Floridians for Government Accountability
National Congress of Black Women
NAACP
Florida State Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Honduran-American Chamber of Commerce
South Florida Puerto Rican Chamber of Commerce


Against



Organizations, Associations, & Businesses

AFL-CIO
American Institute of Architects, Florida
Audubon of the Western Everglades
Audubon Society of the Everglades
AWAKE Palm Beach County
Caloosahatchee River Citizens Association
Christian Coalition of America & Christian Coalition of Florida
Clean Water Action
CLEO Institute
Climate Action Coalition of South Florida
Climate Reality Project
Collier Citizens for Sustainability
Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Conservatives for Energy Freedom
Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship
Consumers Union, Policy and Action from Consumer Reports
Democracy For America Palm Beach County
Earthjustice – Tallahassee
Engage Miami
Environment Florida
Everglades Coalition
First GREEN Bank
Florida Alliance for Retired Americans
Florida Conservation Voters
Florida Education Association
Florida Green Chamber of Commerce
Florida Wildlife Federation
Floridians for Solar Choice
Food & Water Watch
Greenpeace
Hands Across the Sand
Ivan Solbach Company
League of Women Voters of Florida
League of Women Voters of Palm Beach County
Liberty First PAC
Life Vision Church & Bishop Carroll Johnson
Lunar Investments LLC.
Olive The World Bistro
Orange Audubon Society
Our Santa Fe River
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Progress Florida
ReThink Energy Florida
Sierra Club
South Florida Audubon Society
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy
Space Coast Climate Change Initiative
Spacecoast Architects PA
Sunshine State Interfaith Power and Light
Sustainable Tallahassee
Sustany Foundation
Transition Sarasota
U.S. Green Building Council Florida
U.S. Green Chamber of Commerce
Unitarian Universalist Church of Sarasota, Climate Justice Task Force
Unitarian Universalist Justice Florida
Urban Paradise Guild
Winter Park Garden Club
Ybor City Stogie

Solar Industry

A National Electric Svc
A1A Solar
Abundant Energy Inc.
All Solar Solutions
The Alliance for Solar Choice
American Solar Energy Society
American Solar Energy Systems, Inc.
Apollo Construction & Engineering Services, Inc.
Aquatherm Solar Supply
BBC Solar
Bison Roofing and Solar
Caribbean Electric
Cutler Bay Solar Solutions
Elite Solar Services
ESA Renewables LLC
Fl Green Team
Florida Alliance for Renewable Energy
Florida Renewable Energy Association
Florida Solar Energy Industries Association (FLASEIA)
Florida Solar Design Group
Green Corridor Property Assessment Clean Energy District
Green Dwellings, LLC
Harriman’s Solar
Independent Green Technologies
JCG Investments, LLC
MagneGas
May Electric Solar
Mirasol FAFCO Solar, Inc.
Power Production Management, Inc.
Solar Advantage
Solar City
Solar Direct
Solar Education Association of the Florida Keys
Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA)
Solar Energy Management
Solar Habitats, LLC
Solar Impact
Solar Investments Inc.
Solar Kings, Inc.
Solar Ray
Solar Source
Solar Trek
Solar-Fit
Sun Commercial Solar
SunConnect
Superior Solar
Tampa Energy Solutions
TEVAenergy
UMA Solar
Urban Solar
Vinyasun
Vote Solar
Women 4 Solar, LLC

Florida Icons

Jimmy Buffett
Carl Hiaasen
Clyde Butcher
Paula Dockery

Political

Alachua County Democratic Party
Broward Democratic Party
Capital Young Republicans
Davie Democratic Club
Democratic Environmental Caucus of Florida
Democratic Progressive Caucus
Democratic Women’s Club of Florida
Democratic Women’s Club of West Broward
Ecology Party
Greater Fort Lauderdale Democratic Club
Green Party of Florida
Highlands Beach Democratic Club
Hillsborough County Democratic Party
Manatee County Democratic Party
Miami Dade Democratic Party
Leon County Democratic Executive Committee
Libertarian Party of Florida
Libertarian Party of Miami Dade
Orange County Democratic Party
Palm Beach Democratic Party
Pinellas County Democratic Executive Committee
Republican Liberty Caucus of Florida
Seminole County Democratic Party
Stonewall Democrats of Pinellas County
The Tea Party Network
Villages Democratic Club
Volusia Democratic Party

Local Governments, Elected Officials, and Candidates

Vice President Al Gore
Congresswoman Lois Frankel (D – West Palm Beach)
Congresswoman Kathy Castor (D – Tampa)
Former Governor Charlie Crist
Former Florida Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink
Senator Dwight Bullard
Senator Jack Latvala (R – Clearwater)
Senator Darren Soto (D – Kissimmee)
Representative Victor M. “Vic” Torres (D – Orlando)
Steve Edmonds, Candidate for State House, District 28
Adam Morley, Candidate for State House, District 24
John W. Scott, Candidate for State House, District 79
Wakulla County Board of County Commissioners
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
Miami-Dade County Commissioner Xavier Suarez
Pasco County Tax Collector Mike Fasano
Miami Mayor Tomás Regalado
Pinecrest Mayor Cindy Lerner
South Miami Mayor Philip Stoddard
City of South Miami
Village of Palmetto Bay
City of Cutler Bay
Seminole Soil & Water Conservation District
Orange Soil & Water Conservation District
Judith Benson, Chair, Seminole Soil & Water Conservation District
David Mahnken, Seminole Soil & Water Conservation District Supervisor
Donald Menzel, Vice Chairman, Seminole Soil & Water Conservation District
Ed Young, Seminole Soil & Water Conservation District Supervisor
Maria Bolton-Joubert, Candidate for Orange County Soil & Water Conservation District

[Xavier]

I voted yes because it prevents the electric company from forcing me to subsidize the costs of the solar panel users. I voted no on medical marijuana because it is just a loophole for dopers.

You have taken away all doubt! Now we know!

Xavier