Solar power amendment now a proven fraud; vote No

More than once, this Editorial Board has contended that Amendment 1, the so-called solar energy initiative, is essentially a fraud. Supposedly supporting the growth of solar power in Florida, the initiative is actually a creature of major utility companies that seek to keep a tight grip on the state’s energy market. Now comes confirmation that we were right. The policy director of a think tank supported by those utilities admitted at a conference this month that the ballot measure indeed was a deliberate effort to confuse Florida voters.

Sal Nuzzo, a vice president at the James Madison Institute in Tallahassee, called the amendment “an incredibly savvy maneuver” that “would completely negate anything they (pro-solar interests) would try to do either legislatively or constitutionally down the road.”

Because “solar polls very well,” Nuzzo recommended that others also use “a little bit of political jiu-jitsu” and “use the language of promoting solar” to protect the electric power industry’s interests.

His remarks, taped Oct. 2 at a conference in Nashville of conservative policy research groups, were first reported by Mary Ellen Klas of The Miami Herald and Tampa Bay Times.

The political committee behind the amendment, cynically named “Consumers for Smart Solar,” quickly said that Nuzzo “misspoke.” But the group soon erased almost all references to the James Madison Institute on its social media platforms. Looks like someone spoke out of school.

Nuzzo validated Florida Supreme Court Justice Barbara Pariente, who called this amendment “a wolf in sheep’s clothing” in her dissent when the court voted 4-3 to allow this travesty onto the ballot. “Masquerading as a pro-solar energy initiative,” she said it would allow utilities to raise fees on solar customers.

In his breezy remarks, Nuzzo was gloating over the fact that voters will be confused when they get to Amendment 1 on the Nov. 8 ballot. That because solar power is popular (“solar polls very well”), most people will want to vote for something that would create a constitutional right “for consumers to own or lease solar equipment installed on their property to generate electricity for their own use.”

The thing is, you already have that right under state law.

The real point of this exercise is the second sentence: “State and local governments shall retain their abilities to protect consumer rights and public health, safety and welfare, and to ensure that consumers who do not choose to install solar are not required to subsidize the costs of backup power and electric grid access to those who do.”

This dry but crucial clause writes into the state constitution the utilities’ dubious contention that non-solar users will be “subsidizing” grid access for those who go solar. It opens the door for state and local governments to raise fees on people who install solar.

If enacted, the measure will likely make it much harder for independent companies to lease or sell solar panels with small upfront costs — a business model that has spurred solar’s growth in other states without the participation of such behemoths as Florida Power & Light, Duke Energy, Tampa Electric Co. and Gulf Power.

It is no coincidence that these companies, along with a few nonprofits funded heavily by Exxon Mobil and the Koch brothers, have plunged $21 million into a campaign to promote Amendment 1.

The opponents of this measure — and we side with them — don’t have anything like this kind of money to fight back with. All they have is the hope that you will see through the jiu-jitsu of this deceptive amendment. And vote No.