Thread by @alissajean

House Tourism, Infrastructure & Energy Subcommittee has been going on for nearly 1 hour, 30. FPL's anti-solar bill, the one that the room is filled with people waiting to speak on, many who have traveled a long distance, was shuffled to the end of the agenda. The mtg ends at 11.

McClure is just now presenting his anti-solar bill. As a reminder, a nearly identical version was written and hand-delivered by Florida Power & Light to Senate Sponsor Bradley. It passed its first senate stop on Day One of session.

McClure is explaining his grandfathering clause. See my tweet last night for the facts on that & why it does NOT fix all issues raised in the bill:

https://twitter.com/alissajean/status/1489039740426985478

LaMarca stated he did not like the first version of the bill, asks if net metering (rooftop solar policy being discussed) was discussed/addressed during FPL's rate case. McClure says he "does not believe so" (McClure is correct, net metering was NOT raised as a cost by FPL.)

Q from Skidmore, asking about grandfather clauses in other states. McClure says he needs to look, did not study that impact in other states before this time.

Q from Shoaf asks if neighbor who doesn't have solar is paying more because of solar customers. McClure concedes that currently, that amount in question is "de minimous"

Q from Fine, if utility needed a kwh and buys from elsewhere, are they paying the same amount as credit that a solar customer gets. A from McClure, no, utility purchases it at a lower rate. McClure mentions that solar customers do add some value.

Q from Davis, how do we respond to the feedback we are getting that the industry is being negatively impacted by this legislation. McClure - We are trying to find a middle ground.

There are now 66 requests to speak. Chair Drake is instructing all members of Catalyst to nominate "1 or 2" to speak on behalf of over 20 people who traveled from Miami for this mtg, and everyone else to limit comments to 30 seconds.

Theodore Hayes representing FPL has filed a speakers card and "waives in support" .... IYKYK 😂😂😂😂😂

Cavros from @cleanenergyorg states that utilities do not bring up lost revenue from rooftop solar in their rate cases, and that there is already minimum bill provisions already reasonably and fairly deal with any potential issue.

There was another interesting waive in support 👻👻👻. @MaryEllenKlas with the deets:

https://twitter.com/maryellenklas/status/1489264289110118402?s=21

Lisa Edgar is here again, also again not stating who she is representing. Reminder that she has done work with/for utility front group Energy Fairness. energyandpolicy.org/energy-fairnes…

Edgar states she has prepared a paper explaining her points for members. FOIA forthcoming or one of y'all can send it to me directly, please :-)

.@tysonagrinstead of Sunrun here opposed to bill. States we don't know if there is a subsidy, it has not been measured FL. Need to consider tangible economic benefits. NV example, 3k jobs were lost in one month when net metering was killed.

Florida solar installer speaking. Says they are working today at risk of losing their jobs, not just them, but many connected vendors.

Next speaker clarifies that the "check" solar customers get at the end of the year is already at the previously mentioned wholesale value. (Note that FPL reported paying about $65k total to solar customers for the entire 2020 year. Not the millions they are claiming in subsidy.)

Tallahassee solar installer here in opposition. Asks folks to consider how technology can help in the future. This bill would prevent that potential from being realized. calls bill "hypocritical slap in the face to Floridians" and "a job killer" Just protects monopolies.

Solar customer speaking addresses 20 yr grandfather clauses. States that her panels are guaranteed for 30 years. Taxpayers already footing the bill for infrastructure.

LaMarca moved to extend meeting 15 minutes. Approved.

Solar installer here states this bill would put her out of business, supporting employees around the state currently, many in the highest paying jobs they have ever had, $25/hr an up. Getting calls frm customers concerned about what happens if company is gone & they need service.

Chair Drake continues to interrupt speakers asking them to "bring it in." Noting because his behavior is in STARK contrast to his frequent prodding and asking for more questions on several of the previous bills about issues like tow trucks and digital license plates.

Webber from @FCVoters citing research showing that cost shift statements are false and solar customers are cheaper to serve. Reminds members they are voting on the bill as it is today, not how it may be in the future.

Grant from brand new "Seniors Across America" group, an org of unknown funding that was just registered as a non profit in Florida a few months ago. The group has been spending $$ on ads in support of FPL's bill, along with text campaigns. Any guesses where that $$ is from?

Chair attempts to suspend public comment, without even hearing from his instructed "1 or 2" from @CatalystMiami. Shouts from the audience force him to allow an additional comment.

Two representatives from @CatalystMiami speak briefly, citing strong opposition, that this bill is incredibly harmful & based on cost shifts that are not happening, while ACTUAL cost shifts of several hundred millions benefit corporate customers.

Former PSC Leon Jacobs here in opposition. States his perspective is for consumers. Says there is nothing in rate-making that needs a new law like this. Costs currently covered in base rates. Cites NC example, suggests more deliberate approach.

And with that, Drake closes public comment. Folks are continuing to attempt to speak from the audience. Joseph offers to yield her time in debate to constituents who traveled. Drake denies her request and prevents constituents from speaking.

Drake calls for sergeant to restore order. Skidmore taking her time to call out the fact that again, folks are being prevented from being heard. States she has concerns about the bill. Solar should be supported in Sunshine State.

Skidmore states she is a No vote. Also mentioned somebody who traveled to speak but was not allowed to is missing wife's surgery just to be there because the issue is so important.

Drake decided to leave debate and go back to public comment to hear from person whose wife was in surgery, a solar installer.

Solar installer has over 200 employees who will lose their jobs if this bill goes through. Asks who will be around to service current solar installations when companies go out of business. People go solar to save money, not nec. the environment. It's grocery money.

Now to McClure to close. "A lot to contemplate," says he is not here to put anybody out of business. Cites California example, and wants to "prescribe a path forward that makes sense"

Bill passes, 13 yay, 3 nay. I believed I noted three dems voting yes, will post vote record when published, and/or welcome to be clarified/corrected on these dems votes: Brown yes, Davis yes, Silvers yes?

Here is the vote record. Three dems voted in support of FPL's anti-solar bill, Brown, Davis, and Silvers. The bill's next stop has been scheduled for next Tuesday in the Senate Community Affairs Committee.

@threadreaderapp unroll pls :)