11-01-2016, 01:15 PM
Pages: 1 2
11-01-2016, 05:45 PM
https://electrek.co/2016/10/28/tesla-sol...s-gallery/
To add this is probably the future of solar roofs. Pretty friggin cool.
I understand why electric utility companies are scared.
11-01-2016, 08:45 PM
Nah, if the TBTimes, Palm Beach Post and League of Women Voters are against it then I'm all for it.
11-02-2016, 11:20 AM
Quote:Nah, if the TBTimes, Palm Beach Post and League of Women Voters are against it then I'm all for it.
If they came out against Adolf Hitler, would you be for Adolf Hitler?
(I feel like I'm channeling JW here.)
11-02-2016, 11:24 AM
Quote:Nah, if the TBTimes, Palm Beach Post and League of Women Voters are against it then I'm all for it.
that's because they're anti-corporate only at the local level. when it comes to the real mega banks who run wall street and the planet, they vote for their candidate and anybody who doesn't is a racist.
with that said. im against it too. so i guess im a feminist now.
11-02-2016, 11:26 AM
there was a recent ad done by a firefighter saying this amendment will prevent fires or something... total bull
11-02-2016, 11:28 AM
Quote:there was a recent ad done by a firefighter saying this amendment will prevent fires or something... total bull
Seriously??? Bwwahhhahhahh
11-02-2016, 11:32 AM
Quote:Seriously??? Bwwahhhahhahh
http://floridapolitics.com/archives/2242...responders
I have a firefighter friend who made a facebook post saying, "hey, vote how you like, but we firefighters aren't for this."
11-02-2016, 12:45 PM
Quote:If they came out against Adolf Hitler, would you be for Adolf Hitler?
(I feel like I'm channeling JW here.)
That's really easy since they'd favor him.
11-04-2016, 03:29 PM
The article in the OP has me leaning toward a no vote. The site flsolarchoice.org does a horrible job of explaining why not to vote for this in my opinion as it primarily points to the fact that big energy is for this (so it must be bad right?) but is short on the "why". The article points out that the bill would write into the state constitution your right to produce solar energy, but it doesn't need to be in there from what I can surmise because there isn't anything in the state constitution that says you can't produce your own solar energy. The protections from having to subsidize others is nice, but it seems to be them throwing the proverbial bone at voters to get what they really want which is a state constitutionally defined solar industry which will likely be written favorably to the energy companies.
Someone else please expound on this if I'm missing something.
Someone else please expound on this if I'm missing something.
11-04-2016, 05:32 PM
Quote:The article in the OP has me leaning toward a no vote. The site flsolarchoice.org does a horrible job of explaining why not to vote for this in my opinion as it primarily points to the fact that big energy is for this (so it must be bad right?) but is short on the "why". The article points out that the bill would write into the state constitution your right to produce solar energy, but it doesn't need to be in there from what I can surmise because there isn't anything in the state constitution that says you can't produce your own solar energy. The protections from having to subsidize others is nice, but it seems to be them throwing the proverbial bone at voters to get what they really want which is a state constitutionally defined solar industry which will likely be written favorably to the energy companies.
Someone else please expound on this if I'm missing something.
The key thing to look at is the wording of the amendment.
Quote:
Amendment 1. Energy. Equipment that produces solar energy for personal use..
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">
A vote <b>"for"</b> Amendment 1 supports adding a section in the state constitution giving residents of Florida the right to own or lease solar energy equipment for personal use while also enacting constitutional protection for any state or local law ensuring that residents who do not produce solar energy can abstain from subsidizing its production. A vote <b>"against"</b> Amendment 1 opposes constitutionalizing the right to own or lease solar equipment and the protection of laws preventing subsidization of solar energy
, thereby, leaving the personal use of solar power protected as a right by state statute, and not by the constitution.
The key part is in red. I really don't care if people go solar, and as of matter of fact I applaud that. However, doing so should NEVER be "subsidized" with my tax dollars.
It's all mundane details...
11-05-2016, 12:23 AM
Quote:If they came out against Adolf Hitler, would you be for Adolf Hitler?
(I feel like I'm channeling JW here.)
You are confusing me.
11-05-2016, 12:27 AM
Quote:You are confusing me.
No surprise there..
11-05-2016, 12:49 PM
Quote:The key thing to look at is the wording of the amendment.
The key part is in red. I really don't care if people go solar, and as of matter of fact I applaud that. However, doing so should NEVER be "subsidized" with my tax dollars.
It's all mundane details...
You are already protected from that. What this will give the energy companies is the right to charge solar homes larger fees and maybe taxes from what I understand for the quote right to be hooked to the grid.
The bill is wholly paid for by the energy companies THAT is what you should be paying attention to. No individual citizens or grassroots organization sponsored this.
The right vote is NO.
11-05-2016, 02:26 PM
Quote:You are already protected from that. What this will give the energy companies is the right to charge solar homes larger fees and maybe taxes from what I understand for the quote right to be hooked to the grid.
The bill is wholly paid for by the energy companies THAT is what you should be paying attention to. No individual citizens or grassroots organization sponsored this.
The right vote is NO.
That's why I highlighted the important part as a reason to vote against the measure.
11-05-2016, 09:17 PM
Quote:You are already protected from that. What this will give the energy companies is the right to charge solar homes larger fees and maybe taxes from what I understand for the quote right to be hooked to the grid.
The bill is wholly paid for by the energy companies THAT is what you should be paying attention to. No individual citizens or grassroots organization sponsored this.
The right vote is NO.
Yes, and I pay more because of it. Even with solar they are still hooked up to the grid. That cost shouldnt be subsidized by non solar users.
11-07-2016, 11:58 PM
Bradley Marshall, senior associate attorney in Earthjustice’s Florida regional office, explains that it’s not the ballot summary that is deceptive for voters. It’s what is left out. Tucked within the full text—not included on the ballot—is the measure’s definition of subsidizing “backup power.” Section (3)© defines backup power as electricity “from an electric utility” during periods when solar electricity generation is “insufficient or unavailable, such as at night.”
While most people think of “backup power” as electricity via household, off-the-grid generators, Marshall says, the amendment’s definition actually pertains to the daily cycle of energy transaction and consumption. Under Florida’s current net-metering policy, solar users sell unused energy back to the grid at wholesale prices, generally during the day when electricity rates are highest and solar energy is in surplus. Then, solar customers draw energy—or “backup power”—from the grid at night when their rooftop systems are no longer generating power. The language of the amendment could allow for hefty fees to be doled out by utility companies for using this power under the pretense of protection for all consumers—stifling Florida’s bountiful rooftop solar potential in the process.
Opponents of Amendment 1 worry that the utility companies’ real target is the system of net metering itself, and that the measure could lead to its repeal.
While most people think of “backup power” as electricity via household, off-the-grid generators, Marshall says, the amendment’s definition actually pertains to the daily cycle of energy transaction and consumption. Under Florida’s current net-metering policy, solar users sell unused energy back to the grid at wholesale prices, generally during the day when electricity rates are highest and solar energy is in surplus. Then, solar customers draw energy—or “backup power”—from the grid at night when their rooftop systems are no longer generating power. The language of the amendment could allow for hefty fees to be doled out by utility companies for using this power under the pretense of protection for all consumers—stifling Florida’s bountiful rooftop solar potential in the process.
Opponents of Amendment 1 worry that the utility companies’ real target is the system of net metering itself, and that the measure could lead to its repeal.
11-08-2016, 12:02 AM
Quote:Yes, and I pay more because of it. Even with solar they are still hooked up to the grid. That cost shouldnt be subsidized by non solar users.
No you do not. You will not. Show me where you have paid more.
It is ok you just have not taken the time to fully understand what the utility companies are really trying to do.
11-08-2016, 12:23 AM
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2016-5-...-amendment
Another article where the quote above comes from. Please educate yourselves before you vote. Do not be a typical lazy american and vote based on the tv ads paid for by the utility companies.
Another article where the quote above comes from. Please educate yourselves before you vote. Do not be a typical lazy american and vote based on the tv ads paid for by the utility companies.
11-08-2016, 01:29 AM
Quote:http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2016-5-...-amendment
Another article where the quote above comes from. Please educate yourselves before you vote. Do not be a typical lazy american and vote based on the tv ads paid for by the utility companies.
[BAD WORD REMOVED] you, you leech.
Pages: 1 2