Senate committee passes FPL priority bill to restrict rooftop solar on bipartisan vote
In a signal to Florida Power & Light that legislators are committed to pursuing its top priority, a Florida Senate committee gave bipartisan approval Tuesday to a bill intended to restrict the expansion of rooftop solar in Florida.
The Senate Regulated Industries Committee voted 7-2 to approve SB 1024, which would limit the ability of homeowners and businesses to offset costs of rooftop solar installations by selling excess power to the company, an arrangement known as net metering.
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Jennifer Bradley, RFleming Island, was approved after testimony from dozens of solar-industry contractors, homeowners and providers who warned that the bill would undermine incentives for homeowners to install rooftop solar panels.
“What our industry needs is market certainty,’’ said Justin Vandenbroeck, presitween dent of the Florida Solar Energy Industries Association. “There is no current glide path. There is no step down in this policy. It is a straight, take off the legs and fall down.”
Under the billing mechanism, solar energy supplied to the grid is credited to the homeowner or business and then sold by the utility to nearby neighbors at retail rates. The policy became law in 2008 with a goal to “offset electric consumption and help diversify the types of fuel used to generate electricity in Florida.”
Solar-industry representatives warned that by reducing the incentive to offset costs, the measure will eliminate solar-installation jobs, stifle innovation and lead to a reduction in investment in solar energy in the Sunshine State.
Only about 90,000 Florida customers, about 1% of the state’s more than 8.5 million customers, sell excess energy to the electrical grid, but the arrangement has driven significant rooftop solar expansion.
FPL argues rooftop solar could cost Florida utilities about $700 million be2019 and 2025, according to documents submitted to the Florida Public Service Commission. That’s a trend nationwide, as power-company profits are threatened by the rise of distributed renewable energy — a technology that scientists say is essential to limiting the pollution that is causing the climate crisis.
Bradley argued that there is an unfair cost-shift from non-solar users that will only grow if the industry expands and rather than wait for that, Florida should change its policy now. Her bill requires regulators to redesign net-metering rates to ensure that customers who own or lease renewable generation “pay the full cost service,” which often means wholesale instead of retail rates. Bradley said a similar change has been approved in other states when rooftop solar production reached a higher share of the market.
FPL, whose work with dark-money political committees helped to secure Republican control of the state Senate in the 2020 elections, has contributed more than $492,000 to political committees of both parties controlled by legislators or the governor this election cycle alone.
Bradley echoed the utility industry’s contention that “utility-scale solar is so much cheaper than rooftop” and net metering may no longer be the best way to produce sustainable energy.
“We need to reflect: Is that the best way to do it?’’ she asked. “How should we allocate our resources to get to green energy?”
OPPOSING SPEAKERS MAKE THEIR CASE
Solar representatives from across the state countered her claim.
Raul Vergara, owner of Raluna Solar Solutions in Miami, warned that the bill “threatens the stability of Florida rates” because it will result in higher utility costs, not lower.
In the last year, he said, solar customers spent $750 million to invest in solar energy, an investment that “strengthens our grid and resilience” and, unlike the regulated utilities, “nobody has to pay them back.”
“If we pass this bill and discourage private investment into solar, we are raising the rates on everybody,’’ he said.
Sen. Darrell Rouson,
D-St. Petersburg, said it was alleged that this bill would “decimate the solar industry” and cited an NAACP editorial that warned that the bill would have a disproportionate impact on “low-income and minority communities.”
Bradley responded that the bill would grandfather anyone who currently has rooftop solar for another 10 years and argued that “the repayment theory is regressive and disadvantages low-income consumers because they’re the ones that are absorbing the costs and are not being paid by our solar customers.”
Joe Magro of Titan Solar Power in Tampa said Bradley’s “talking points were skewed.” He said that solar installation typically has a 20- to 25-year life span and warranty, so the bill’s 10year provision would jeopardize those investments.
“These are people that have electric bills of between $150 to $200 a month,’’ he said. “The product is not just for the rich. It is truly intended for people who want to have an energy independence ... and also lock in their rates.”