Res No 196-16-14751RESOLUTION NO.196-16-1 47 51
A Resolution of the City of South Miami exposing the hidden agenda behind
Amendment 1 ballot question titled "Rights of Electricity Consumers
Regarding Solar Energy Choice",scheduledfor November 8,2016General
Election Ballot,and informing the public of the facts surrounding the
amendment and its effects and ramifications.
WHEREAS,Florida spends billions ofdollarseachyear purchasing carbon-based
fuelsfromotherstatesand countries topoweritshomes,businesses,andvehicles,while
solarpowerwillkeepenergydollarsinthestateandcreate good-paying localsales,
installation,and maintenance jobs;and
WHEREAS,solar photovoltaic energyoffersmany potential benefits,including:
lower electricity costs for homeowners,businesses,and governments;local jobs and
economic development;reduced dependence on imported fuels;pollution-free electricity
generation;no water use;and contribution toa more resilient electric grid;and
WHEREAS,Florida hasthe third-highest potential for rooftop solar energy
generation in the United States,but currently ranks 14th in the nation for installed solar
capacity,according to the Solar Energy Industry Association;and
WHEREAS,in the eastern United States,Florida has the greatest potential for
rooftop solar power of any state yet,according to The Gainesville Sun news,with 9
million electric utility customer accounts,less than 12,000 customer-sited solar electric
systems exist in Florida;and
WHEREAS,New Jersey,which onlyhas half the population of Florida anddoes
not enjoy the same abundance of sunlight that exists in the "Sunshine State",has over
43,000 customer-sited solar electric systems,according to The Gainesville Sun;and
WHEREAS,increased solar-generated electricity,including customer-sited
systemsonresidentialandcommercialproperties,willbeakey strategy forachievingthis
community-widegoal of maximizingtheutilization of Florida's abundance of sunlight;
and
WHEREAS,the resounding passage of Amendment 4 which authorizes the
Florida Legislature to exempt solarandotherrenewable energy systemsfromboth
residentialandcommercialpropertyappraisalsandfromthetangiblepersonalpropertytax
bythevotersonAugust30,2016 showsthatamajority of Floridianswantmorerightsand
less restrictions;and
WHEREAS,Amendment1,titled "Rights ofElectricityConsumersRegarding
SolarEnergyChoice,"willbepresentedtovotersattheNovember8,2016general
election;and
Page 1 of 4
Res.No.196-16-14751
WHEREAS,Amendment1purportstoprovideanew"choice"forsolarpowerin
itstitle,butnochoicesareprovidedinAmendment1andnonewsolarrightsarecreated,
butinstead,Amendment1willplacecritical restrictions onexistingsolarrightsinthe
Florida Constitution accordingtoFloridaSupremeCourtJusticeBarbaraParienteinher
dissentin Advisory Opinion to Atty.Gen.re Rights of Electricity Consumers regarding
SolarEnergy Choice,188So.3d822 (Fla.2016);and
WHEREAS,JusticeBarbaraParientewroteaminorityopinion,supportedbytwo
other justices,to warn the voters of a bait and switch tactic and stated:
"Letthe pro-solar energyconsumersbeware.Masqueradingasapro-solar
energyinitiative,thisproposed constitutional amendment,supportedby
someofFlorida's major investor-ownedelectricutilitycompanies,actually
seeks to constitutionalize thestatusquo.Duetotheuseand definitions of
certain terms within the proposed amendment,itmay actually have the
effect of diminishingsomerights of solarenergyconsumers.Forexample,
agroup of environmental groupswhofileda brief in opposition assertthat
this amendment will eliminate"[averydesirable method of payment
called]"'pay-by-the-watf leasesbynarrowlydefining"lease,"rendering
many ordinary consumers unable to afford the "tens of thousands of
dollarsto purchase solarpanels."
The minority alsofeltthat "[t]he ballottitleis affirmatively misleading byitsfocus
on"SolarEnergyChoice,"whennorealchoiceexistsforthosewhofavorexpansion of
solar energy."Alsothe minority foundthat"[t]heballot language isfurtherdefectivefor
purportingtograntrightstosolarenergyconsumersthatareillusory;andfailing,as
required,toclearlyandunambiguouslysetforththe chief purpose of theproposed
amendment —to maintain thestatusquofavoringthevery electric utilities whoarethe
proponents of this amendment."
The minority opinion points outthat"[w]hatthe ballot summary doesnotsayis
thatthereis already a right tousesolar equipment for individual useaffordedbythe
FloridaConstitutionandexistingFloridastatutesandregulations.Itdoesnotexplainthat
the amendment will elevate theexistingrights of the"government to regulate solarenergy
useand establish that regulatory power asa constitutional right in Florida Thisisa
glaring omission,especially sincerightsenshrinedinthe Constitution aregenerally
intended tolimit,rather than grant,governmentalpower."***"This ballot initiative isthe
proverbial 'wolf in sheep's clothing.5"
The minority noted that:
"[the title of the ballot question]...doesnot illuminate thereal purpose,
namely,to place a critical restrictiononthoserights[tousesolar
equipment]through elevatingstateandlocalgovernments'policepowers
to regulate solar energy to the constitutional level."
***
"The ballot summary does not make clear thatthe right of homeowners to
own solar equipment for their ownusealready exists.Asa result,it
Page 2 of4
Res.No.196-16-14751
createsafalseimpressionthatavoteinfavoroftheamendmentis
necessaryforthe voter tobe afforded therightatall."
if:**
"Theimpactisthattheconstitutionalrightthattheamendment
purportedly creates inthefirstsection[of Amendment 1]is seriously
diminished inthe second section [of Amendment 1].The proposed
amendment wouldhavethepracticaleffect of maintaining thestatusquo
withthebalance of powerinthehands of theutilitycompanies."
***
"Clearly,thisisanamendment geared toensurenothingchangeswith
respecttotheuse of solarenergyinFlorida—itisnota"pro-solar"
amendment."
WHEREAS,Amendment 1will establish a constitutional right andthengivethe•
government unbridled discretiontolimitthatrightbylaterdefiningthe meaning ofthe
word "subsidy";and
WHEREAS,Amendment 1will insert inthe Florida Constitution an unsupported,
misleading,andinaccuratepresumptionthatsolarrooftopcustomersare"subsidized"by
solar customers;and
WHEREAS,Amendment 1impliesthatthesolarcustomersarenotpayingtheir
fairshare of thecost of thegridandthatFP&Lwillbeforcedto charge the non-solar
customertopayforthe cost notbeingpaidbythesolarcustomers.There hasbeenno
evidence that this has occurred but even if it does,there isno need for a constitutional
amendment sincethe state hastherightto regulate what FPL charges its customers
without a constitutional amendment.Moreover,solar electricity is more efficient than
electricitygeneratedata power plant.Theelectricitythatstartsatthepowerplant
dissipatesasittravelsalongthetransmissionlinesandrequiresthatextraelectricitybe
generatedtocompensateforthelossinthetransmissionprocesswhereassolarelectricity
thatisputintothegridreducesthecosttoallcustomerssincethesolarelectricityisused
locally.Inaddition,and currently,attheend of theyear,solar customers whohaveanet
gainareonlypaidafraction of whatthepowercompanychargesitscustomers;and
WHEREAS,Amendment 1,if itpasses,canbeusedto weaken or eliminate the
state's net metering policy;and
WHEREAS,the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting ("FCIR")reported
that,as early asApril of 2015,therewasalready legislation circulating in Tallahassee in
an attempt tostop homeowners withsolarpowerfrom selling extraenergy back to utility
companies;and
WHEREAS,FCIR found that from 2010 to 2015 utility companies had invested
$12 million intothe campaigns of state lawmakers.When FCIR asked one West Palm
Beach lobbyist who represents solarcompanieswhywe don't havea bigger solar industry
Page 3 of 4
Res.No.196-16-14751
in Florida,the lobbyist said:"The answer is simple.Every kilowatt of solar you produce
onyour roof isonelesskilowattthattheutilitiescansellyou.";and
WHEREAS,Amendment1issponsoredbyanorganizationcalledConsumersfor
SmartSolar which appears tobe primarily bankrolled bythe state's big power companies
allofwhom appear tobe opposed tothe current net metering policy;and
WHEREAS,the ballot question for Amendment 1istitled "Rights of Electricity
ConsumersRegardingSolarEnergyChoice"and,asitisdescribedabove,itisdetrimental
totheCityofSouthMiami'spreviously expressed supportforeffortstoincreasesolar
energygenerationandotherforms of renewableenergyintheCity of SouthMiami,andin
the State of Florida.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI,FLORIDA,THAT:
Section 1.TheCity Commission finds that therecitalset forth hereinabove are
trueandcorrectandtheyareherebyadoptedbyreferenceasifsetforthinfullherein.
Section2.TheCityClerkis hereby instructed tosendacopyofthisresolution
toall the voters of theCity of South Miami aswellastoallthe Cities and Counties inthe
stateof Florida forthe purpose of informing themofthe facts surrounding Amendment 1,
theeffectthatthe amendment willhaveonthe consumers of electricity,the ramifications
ofthe amendment andthe apparent agenda ofthe supporters ofthis proposed
constitutional amendment.
Section3.This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5thdav of October ,2016.
OTEST:APPROVED:
-^
READ AND APPROVED AS TOJPORM,
LANGUAGErEE^ALITY,
MAY
COMMISSION VOTE 5-0
Mayor Stoddard:yea
Vice Mayor Welsh:yea
Commissioner Edmond:Yea
Commissioner Harris:Yea
Commissioner Liebman:Yea
Page 4 of 4