Thread by @alissajean

FPL's anti-solar bill is up in 2 spots today, on House Floor, currently in session, & its final Senate Committee Stop, Rules, at 1:30. Will be doing my best to provide updates throughout the day on this bill - which has been wildly opposed by Floridians but still pushed through.

The bill, HB 741, is not yet up, but several amendments were filed. You can see that three from Rep @AnnaForFlorida have been withdrawn, apparently because they were ruled out of order: flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2…

Those amendments included: Language to allow for access to third-party sale of power by groups including schools, non profits, + more, ability for municipality to direct PSC to do feasibility study for switching to municipal utility, & establishment o/ 100% renewable energy goal.

FPL's anti-solar bill is now up on the floor. McClure is presenting.

.@CarlosGSmith w/Q - Asks McClure to walk through "cost shift" implied in bill

McClure says that the cost of solar is being passed on to non-solar customers, and that creates a cost shift. Reminder: This so-called cost shift has not been proven, nor brought up in ANY rate case by ANY utility EVER.

.@CarlosGSmith addresses the part of the bill that allows utilities to get cost recovery on utilities' "lost revenue" because of solar users using less energy.

.@micheleforfl asks why do we need this bill now? (reminder that FL rooftop solar penetration is below 1%)

Overdorf asks for examples of what "zero subsidies" looks like. McClure alludes to batteries being online. Says will be up to PSC to determine amount and to ensure subsidy doesn't happen.

.@AnnaForFlorida asks what data McClure is using to identify cost shift. McClure references PSC workshop that he asked the commission to do. [which was prompted by a memo done by utility front group "Energy Fairness"]

For the record, @floridapsc did not establish that Net Metering was an "upcoming problem" as McClure just implied. In fact, the Office Of Public Counsel called it a "net benefit to all ratepayers" in the same workshop.

.@AnnaForFlorida asks McClure to address the concerns from many businesses in the solar industry. Folks are worried bout losing thousands of jobs. McClure says they have 18 months before glidepath starts. [in other words, it's a planned death of an industry] Ultimately up to PSC.

McClure: Folks are going to have to re-adjust to be successful in Florida, re: solar companies.

Rep Hinson asks McClure if he believes we should gather experts to discuss advancing solar, not backing off it. Speaker asks her to ask a question about the bill, not McClure's opinion. Hinson reframes, Speaker says her reframe is debate. McClure doesn't answer.

Rep Geller - "we have a lot of solar in this state. what's the percentage on rooftop solar" McClure - "0.8% based on data from PSC"

Geller continuing w/comments from committee reflecting myth: "solar is bad for poor people" Reminder: Rooftop solar is important tool for LMI folks to access clean energy, have energy independence, and save on monthly energy costs. Geller's talking points are BS, respectfully.

.@CarlosGSmith why are we not asking utilities to change their business model as we need to move away from fossil fuel? McClure wants "be careful talking about fossil fuel"

.@CarlosGSmith if we are talking about less than 1% currently, is this bill going to result in increase, keep the same, or decrease amount of rooftop solar? McClure - Good question to ask why we are only at 0.8% and proceeds to make the case that bill could be good for industry??

If this is confusing to you, it is to me as well. McClure logic is.... 🧐🧐🧐 @MaryEllenKlas:

https://twitter.com/MaryEllenKlas/status/1498723870202859528

Rep Woodson asks about interconnection fee, raising a good point. Solar customers pay for that, not their neighbors, and not the utility. This fee is in addition to all the other normal customer fees that we all pay.

.@micheleforfl cites NV example of negative impact to many solar companies. McClure says that his glidepath avoids that. Says colleagues are "tired of getting emails" from both sides on this issue. Oh, you mean tired of doing your job to the people of Florida?

Now in amendments. @AnnaForFlorida citing need to work toward energy independence even at hyper-local level as a matter of national security. Rooftop solar can be a part of that.

McClure asks @AnnaForFlorida for timeline on lost jobs. Eskamani expresses concern that the 6.5% penetration level could be reached in a couple of years, which would accelerate job loss.

.@AnnaForFlorida emphasizes the 0.8% point we are at today = this bill is premature. Bill is not based on NREL definition of penetration, based on conversations with experts in the industry.

McClure asks if @AnnaForFlorida expects job loss in the next 18 months. Eskamani says that even ONE job loss is a concern.

I'd remind folks that solar companies in committees prior have already testified that job losses have ALREADY started. The demand for solar is dropping because of the uncertainty that this bill has already caused.

We are on amendment 812213 - changing title to “Florida’s People Lose Act” From @AnnaForFlorida. @CarlosGSmith reminding the floor that this bill was written by FPL and he thinks the title is appropriate. [So. Do. I.]

Amendment not adopted. On to 297461 - @AnnaForFlorida - Replaces bill with directive for a study by PSC along Office of Energy w/in Dept of Ag and FSEC to identify any fixed costs or subsidies. Also would report cost benefits and value of solar.

Rep Payne asks how this report is possible. @AnnaForFlorida explains that it would be a group of experts. [underlines the fact that all legislators are not, bless their hearts, exerts in energy policy.] Payne continues that he thinks it's an unreasonable request, not possible.

.@AnnaForFlorida: We have reports done by front groups that don't show the whole picture. Let's get an objective study that removes any bias.

.@RepDotieJoseph calls McClure out for having his back turned/not paying attention to the debate on his bill. Joseph states she does not understand cost shift assertion. @AnnaForFlorida explains that study is needed to answer that question, utilities haven't raised in rate case.

.@CarlosGSmith concerned that we are recklessly passing a bill based only on assertions, not a study, not facts, just based on what FPL tells us, so that they can protect their profits. #micdrop

Rep. F Robinson "when you know better, you do better!" Supports study.

.@RepDotieJoseph states it's important to know what the real numbers are. It's important to know "who and how much" - we have not delved into this and we need to. Says she doesn't have beef with FPL but is concerned about taking away from our constituents.

Amendment fails. [Note that SB 1024 is now up in rules, but given that I can only listen to one thing at a time effectively, I'll provide updates on that later!]

Now onto amendment 490195 from @AnnaForFlorida which provides expectations including edu facility, school district, religious org, assisted living, non profits, group home, foster, local gov, women or minority-owned businesses, low income housing, LMI, or housing for 60+

Rep F Robinson speaking as former teacher in strong support of the amendment.

"Students are being trained to enter the [solar industry] field... assuming there still is one." @AnnaForFlorida Amendment fails.

On to 281527 from @AnnaForFlorida which would exempt same list of orgs, schools, etc from being included in the calculation of the penetration rate.

Amendment fails. On to 923115 from Rep. Hinson: PSC must develop study to determine comprehensive effects of new NEM rules, before Jan. 1, 2023, at which point we would come back to the issue.

Hinson asks McClure to repeat himself because did not hear. Speaker says not allowed. Amendment failed.

Now 395669 from Hinson (Energy Equity Task Force creation) McClure rises in opposition because the amendment already exists in a bill that has not been heard incommittee. Amendment is overruled.

Now 214887 from @MarieWoodsonFL which directs Office of Program Policy Analysis and Gov Accountability to conduct racial impact analysis on reliance on fossil fuels, and NEM rules impact on communities of color. [Note that FPL is projected at 61% gas reliant in 2030]

Amendment failed. Now @YvonneHinsonFL 932703
(Establishes Energy Freedom for All Program) McClure again rises in opposition, says bill expands scope, amendment overturned. That's all for the floor reading this time around, folks!

I am now catching up on FPL's anti-solar bill being heard this afternoon in Senate Rules committee. Bradley explains her amended bill includes glidepath (like house version/McClure's)

Grandfather clause & 6.5% penetration rate also matches House version. Brandes asks if penetration includes utility solar. Bradley does not have that answer readily available, which makes sense because she didn't write the bill, FPL did. She finds it. Rate only includes rooftop.

.@FarmerForFLSen asks if shouldn't penetration rate be matched to market penetration, because as he understands it there isn't a cost shift until at least 10%

.@FarmerForFLSen says they have been addressed by many in the industry with urgent concerns over how this impacts their industry even with the glidepath, this would effectively kill solar.

Garcia (beneficiary of the ghost candidate scandal that FPL is tied to) asks a couple of questions that imply solar is somehow worsening home insurance crisis and hurting low-income folks, towing the utility lines there, I see.

Powell (D) also pushes the question of solar making it harder to get insurance. Bradley says it's different with every provider.

Bracy asks if non-solar bills will go DOWN because of the bill. Bradley says the goal is no subsidy. "Right now the effect is de minimis. " So in other words, cost shift does not exist, and, all bills will continue to go up as the monopoly utility raises them.

[How can the previous tweet "de minimis effect" be true at the same time as FPL's claims of million in subsidies. #ShowUsTheMath]

Brandes asks about study.
Bradley- Study will come at end of glidepath.
Brandes - Why not wait for the study to be done.
Bradley - We know where this is going.
Brandes - Is there a concern that the PSC is controlled by the utilities.
Bradley - I'm not aware of that concern 🧐

Respectfully, Bradley, utility control of the PSC has been a concern for years. Here's @MaryEllenKlas writing about an @IntegrityFL report from 2017, and I'd argue it's gotten worse since then miamiherald.com/news/state/flo…

Farmer also asks about savings being passed on to non solar customers. Bradley repeats that the impact now is de minimis. Again, how can that be true at the same time as FPL's talking points about millions in subsidies today?

Farmer asks why this issue hasn't come up in rate cases. Bradley says that isn't the right venue, despite the fact that MILLION$ in other costs, including trade association dues to groups that lobby against customer interests, are addressed and approved in rate cases.

Former PSC Leon Jacobs here, opposed to the concept of trying to fix something now based on not knowing what is going to happen in the future. Points to option in SC as one solution.

Students from Florida Student Power Network here opposed to bill. First student: When you limit the growth of clean energy, it's up to young people like me to clean up the mess you leave.

Second student: Rooftop solar helps low-income families and allows them to have energy freedom. Urges committee to support people of Florida not corporate interests like FPL.

Solar company up, opposed. "The legislature should not be in the business of ratemaking"

.@tysonagrinstead from @Sunrun up, expresses gratefulness for many of the amendments, but still has issue with the lack of cost/benefit study. "There are collaborative ways solar companies and utilities can work together"

Another student speaking, opposed to the bill. Concerned over lack of jobs, people leaving the state to find solar jobs. The bill will do harm.

Kim Ross of @RethinkEnergyFL "Bill sponsor says we know where we are going, but we do not... Rulemaking is not the same as conducting a workshop (re: PSC workshop on the topic)" There has been no study to back up numbers being pushed. Opposed to the bill.

.@SierraClubFL this bill "offers the glidepath of a brick." puts solar out of reach for everyone except the wealthy. Opposed.

Solar customer up now. "It's not a choice, I have to get net metering." It is part of the financial decision. Utility gave $1.50 back at end of the year. Meanwhile her monthly bill keeps going up from utility. Feels she is paying her fair share.

.@LindsayCrossFL w/@FCVoters opposed to bill. Urges committee to be brave and vote no. Cites recent IPCC report, outlines failure of leadership to address climate problems. "Rooftop solar is one of the most important actions we can take."

Garcia asks @LindsayCrossFL why other states have moved away from solar. Cross answers that other states are still looking at ways to address energy needs including solar. Garcia pushes, says that solar isn't successful. Cross asks how Garcia defines success.

Garcia continues this strange exchange, seeming to try to get Cross to admit that solar is a failure? @LindsayCrossFL emphasizes that solar including rooftop is a critical part of every state's portfolio.

Lisa Edgar is here in support, again, so I'll remind folks that she authored a memo attacking net metering with utility front group Energy Fairness. You can read up on the group here - energyandpolicy.org/energy-fairnes…

Gibson asks Edgar to clarify impact on lower-income customers, said Edgar seemed to refute it. Edgar doubles down on utility argument that solar is bad for lower-income folks.

Video recording glitched on my end so may have skipped a few but next up is John Grant with the mystery pop-up Seniors Across America group that has been spending money on ads in support of FPL's bill. Would love to know where that $$ is coming from.

Several cards here, all waiving in opposition. Next speaker is from Florida Alliance for Retired Americans, which "actually has members" unlike that "other group" which she thinks "is a front group." Opposed to the bill.

My replay/catch-up attempt of Senate Rules committee was a bit glitchy, so I did not capture all the Senate debate on the bill. However, I do know that the bill passed as expected with at least two Dems siding with FPL + GOP members. Will post vote record when avail!

Here are the votes from FPL's anti-solar bill in yesterday's final Senate committee stop. Neither party was fully aligned. Brandes was lone R that opposed the bill, Gibson & Powell were the two Dems that supported it.

Given that the House version of the anti-solar bill went to its final reading and vote about 24 hrs from being on the special order calendar, no reason to expect Senate version won't move just as quickly. @threadreaderapp unroll pls.