Florida Amendment #1 BEWARE and VOTE NO
 

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?

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

Vote yes on amendment 1
 

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.

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.

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

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.

Vote NO on Amendment 1
 

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.

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.

I'm voting NO. You may wish to read this:
http://www.**************.com/know-t...-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.

http: // http://www.**************.com/know-t...-state-ballot/

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

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!

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

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:

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.

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

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!

Excellent and dead on post. :thumbup:

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

Still waiting
 

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...

You ave done your due diligence...thank you

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

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

Still waiting
 

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.

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

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/propert...ures/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:

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

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

Good I am voting no.

I agree.

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.

Excellent post and very astute. :thumbup:

Forbes has an opinion as well. They call the amendment as "A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing". CLICK HERE 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.