Reporters covering the Florida Legislature learn pretty quickly that much of the legislation is generated by competing business interests.
The trick always is to figure out which side's position is in the public's best interest.
This year there is an issue more difficult to grasp than others. It is in the dueling proposals for a constitutional amendment related to solar power.
Current law says you can put solar panels on your home and if you have excess power, sell it to the local electric utility that is on the network referred to as “the grid.”
One group wants to allow out-of-state companies to put panels on your home, but you wouldn't own them and the companies would not be regulated.
They say this would increase competition, which most conservatives normally would support.
What makes it blurry is that the other side also has conservative groups supporting them. And they call the other proposal “crony capitalism.”
Here are the players: Consumers for Smart Solar (CSS) and Floridians for Solar Choice (FSC).
FSC is the group that wants to allow out-of-state companies to play. CSS is the group supported by the state's electric utilities.
FSC claims support from Conservatives for Energy Freedom, Christian Coalition, Florida Libertarian Party, Florida Republican Liberty Caucus and the Tea Party Network.
Among those supporting CSS are Americans for Prosperity, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, Florida State Conference of the NAACP, Florida State Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Florida Chamber of Commerce and Florida League of Cities, according to CSS public relations contact Sarah Bascom.
Probably the strongest argument FSC has is that only four states prohibit what they propose, implying that Florida is behind the curve. The strongest argument of CSS -- if true -- is that the competing proposal would increase costs for everyone, including non-solar customers.
Bascom says, “A customer who signs a 20-year contract after a slick sales pitch is no longer in the free market. And, that’s how these out-of-state solar companies operate. The shady solar amendment advocated by our opponents is written to benefit the third-party solar electricity industry, not consumers. It does nothing for those who want to buy or lease solar equipment and generate their own electricity. Ours does.”
She offers this as an example of the pitfalls. She also says that current rates advertised by third-party companies are higher than traditional electricity rates paid by Florida customers. If so, then the fact that consumers can choose would seem to benefit the utilities.
FSC has this FAQ, which is intended to rebut the CSS arguments.
Both sides have YouTube videos making their points.
Interestingly, Georgia allowed such purchase power agreements last year, by legislation, and there has been no rush to utilize them.
Messing with the constitution usually is not a good idea and in this case the best choice might be to vote both amendments down until solar power proves its value (without subsidy) and/or the Legislature decides to make a change.
But it won't be up for vote until next November, so there is plenty of time to ponder the proposals.
Lloyd Brown was in the newspaper business nearly 50 years, beginning as a copy boy and retiring as editorial page editor of the Florida Times-Union in Jacksonville. After retirement he served as a policy analyst for Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.
