Thread by @alissajean

FPL's anti-solar bill is up in its final House Committee stop this morning, you can watch along here: thefloridachannel.org/watch/event/1_…

It's a packed agenda, and late last night another very technical amendment was filed to the now 8-page bill. Per @bruceritchie McClure says "no agreement yet"

https://twitter.com/bruceritchie/status/1496484939340070916

Chair states he intends to address the solar bill last, at 11am, with a vote by 11:50.

Since you have a few before the bill is up, take a few minutes to read through this [still very very very bad for rooftop solar] bill as amended last night: myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Docum…

Update - Committee is still not up to the solar bill. Here's the massive meeting packet (628 pages) that shows the rest of what is being discussed in this one mtg. myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Docum…

And with a big sigh, Chair says net metering bill is up next. There is apparently also a "handwritten amendment" to be heard and considered.

McClure introduces bill, says his amendment provides a glidepath to reduce credit that solar customer recieves over 6.5 yrs, starting in 2023.

The handwritten amendment: Moves effective date to when a permit is approved as opposed to when a solar system is in service.

Grandfathering clause is 20 years, locking in rate at whatever it was when the permit for that system was approved.

Daley asks if language would force PSC to implement fixed charges in 2029. McClure clarifies that the PSC "shall" per the bill language... but doesn't necessarily automatically "award" fixed fees.

The fixed charges (ie - additional fees for solar customers) are justified by McClure by a need for "zero subsidies"

Geller asks if costs to solar customers are part of the rate base. McClure says yes, however, these costs have NEVER been raised in ANY rate case, as many have testified in previous committees.

Nixon - Will this bill make it harder for low-income families to install solar on their homes? McClure - "Don't know how to answer this" Says they will still have access but will come down to financial decision. Okay, I will ans for you, Rep. The answer is yes, it will hurt LMI.

Public testimony starting now. Audubon waives in support? They have been opposed in many committees before, is that waive stated correctly?

.@KOttenweller of @votesolar disagrees with need for bill, cant support something that reduces ability for folks to go solar. Bill has made progress but there are still issues. Cites FEECA statute re: not allowing discrimination of solar customers. This bill would undo that.

To previous low income question: explains that 41% of solar customers in Gulf Power (FPL sister company in panhandle) make under 50k annually

Here's Lisa Edgar in support of FPL's bill again, so I'll just remind everyone that Edgar authored utility front group Energy Fairness's piece attacking net metering recently.

Sunova is here in support of the effort in the amendment but opposes the bill. Can't support the bill based on the argument of cost shift which has never been proven. Bill is based on assumptions only. No utility has shown the math.

Re: Cost shift math, as heard "five different numbers" depending on "what day of the week it is and who you are meeting with. Opposes bill.

Next speaker opposes bill, calls it a rush to rulemaking, notes that a 4 page bill is now an 8 page bill.

.@tysonagrinstead of @Sunrun says that the one problem he still has with the bill is the fixed charge aspect. Before charges are implemented on solar customers "there could be a better way to do it"

Next speaker also opposes the proposed glidepath, says it's based on an arbitrary timeline not based on any documented facts or evidence.

The previous speaker was with @LWVFlorida and continued that a study is needed before such a sweeping change is implemented. Opposes bill.

Next is @SierraClubFL emphasizing that solar currently benefits LMI customers, bill only benefits investor-owned utilities.

Rep from @RethinkEnergyFL here in opposition as well. Cost recovery language on lost revenue is a problem. Pls vote no.

John Grant here again from mystery pop-up group Seniors Across America that has been spending money on ads supporting FPL's anti-solar bill.

Now @jonwebber w/@FCVoters urges lawmakers vote NO, says it's based entirely on non-existent data. Other states have testified that solar customers are actually cheaper to serve. Florida is not California. Solar policy is not a one size fits all policy.

Next speaker also from solar industry. Thankful for effort on amendment but cannot support bill. Some language would undercut the proposed glidepath completely. (My read of the language aligns with this, there are many trigger points that benefit utilities)

Solar customer and installer up, explaining that she uses zero hours from the utility but is still paying over $30/month in fees. Goes on to highlight other items that utility customers are currently subsidizing even if they don't get the benefit.

"We the constituents are dependent on you, the lawmakers, to hold the utilities accountable."

Next speaker also in solar industry, says that the amendment is good effort but still leaves the bill fundamentally flawed.

He is there representing @FlaSEIA and says the org is very disappointed.

Retired Navy Seal Commander and solar company CEO up next. Current bill is "not ready for prime time" Oppose it greatly. Bill is a non-starter.

Another solar company owner up, concerned about jobs. Has created over 40 jobs, set to triple, but bill would destroy that prospect. "We're still not there" re: amendments proposed. "I beg you, plead, to look at the data." Opposed to bill.

And folks, I'm so sorry, but I'm going to have to cut this short due to a previously scheduled conflict. I will pick this thread back up ASAP!

Alright, I'm back! Here's what happened in the rest of the committee on FPL's anti-solar bill...

The next speaker was a solar user, firmly opposed to the bill. Said that FPL did not provide any infrastructure to them, the solar customer, they did it on their own cost. He is motivated by a grandchild who fights forest fires, concerned about the future.

Another solar industry pro up, opposed to the bill. Highlights record exec compensation by FPL, says they are in it only for greed.

Another solar industry here, talking about how he spent 14 years building this Florida business, appreciates the efforts in the amendment but says the bill still would damage an entire industry for a problem that does not exist.

"People don't buy solar, they finance it... Solar is for everyone, it is not a partisan issue. Get the data first." Opposed to bill.

Next speaker, Navy veteran, is pro-solar from a perspective of national security, as well as fighting for her job along with many other veterans employed in the solar industry currently.

Asks committee if they are prepared to sabotage the industry? "How many jobs are you comfortable losing" Opposed to bill.

Next solar installer says he despises being there, doesn't want to be giving testimony, but is very concerned for his company and employees. Layoffs have already started because people are concerned about the bill and not buying solar.

Says that lawmakers voting in support of this bill were elected by people opposed to the bill, urges not to be on the wrong side of history, progress, people, freedom, right of Americans. "do the right thing and vote no"

Next solar installer is there for the third time this session. When a similar policy passed in Jacksonville he had to reduce his company by half, and many peers had to close up shop. Says the subsidy is actually being paid by solar customers, not the other way around.

"Are we going to just cover the state with utility solar fields? Rooftops! That's the answer!"

In debate. Geller (D) states that there are icicles in hell because he is voting in support of the bill against his friends at LWC, FCV etc.

Geller says solar shouldn't be paid for on the backs of "poor people" despite much testimony and evidence to the contrary.

Plakon (R) also supports the bill, using the same "don't make the poor people pay for it" type of argument, again despite so much research showing that this argument is not backed up by data.

Bill passes, with Dems split. Will post the vote record when avail, but I believe at least three Dems supported FPL's anti-solar bill including Silvers, Geller, and Omphroy, with Dems Daley, Nixon, and Thompson opposed. Pls chime in if you can confirm.

Here's the vote record on FPL's anti-solar bill yesterday. Only 4 Dems voted No (Daley, Nixon, Thompson, Willhite) Dems that voted Yes: Geller, Omphroy, Silvers. Dem Grieco missed the vote. This was the final House stop before the floor. Senate has one committee remaining.

@threadreaderapp unroll pls