LTC 466-2016 South Miami Resolution MIAMI BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
No. 466-2016 LETTER TO COMMISSION
TO: Mayor Philip Levine and Members of the ity Commission
FROM: Rafael E. Granado, City Clerk
DATE: October 31, 2016
SUBJECT: SOUTH MIAMI RESOLUTION
Attached for your information is Resolution No. 196-16-14751, adopted by the Mayor and
Commission of the City of South Miami on October 5, 2016.
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",
SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 8, 2016 GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT, AND
INFORMING THE PUBLIC OF THE FACTS SURROUNDING THE
AMENDMENT AND ITS EFFECTS AND RAMIFICATIONS.
The City of South Miami has requested that a copy of this resolution be provided to the Miami
Beach Mayor and Commissioners.
If you have any questions, please contact the Office of the City Clerk at 305.673.7411.
JLM/REG
Attachment
F:\CLER\$ALL\LILIA\LTC's-Transmittal's\Resolution 196-16-14751.docx
RESOLUTION NO 196-16-14751
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", scheduled for November 8, 2016 General
Election Ballot, and informing the public of the facts surrounding the
amendment and its effects and ramifications.
WHEREAS, Florida spends billions of dollars each year purchasing carbon-based
! fuels from other states and countries to power its homes, businesses, and vehicles, while
solar power will keep energy dollars in the state and create good-paying local sales,
installation, and maintenance jobs; and
WHEREAS, solar photovoltaic energy offers many 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 to a more resilient electric grid; and
WHEREAS, Florida has the 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 only has half the population of Florida and does
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
systems on residential and commercial properties, will be a key strategy for achieving this
community-wide goal of maximizing the utilization of Florida's abundance of sunlight;
and
WHEREAS, the resounding passage of Amendment 4 which authorizes the
Florida Legislature to exempt solar and other renewable energy systems from both
residential and commercial property appraisals and from the tangible personal property tax
by the voters on August 30, 2016 shows that a majority of Floridians want more rights and
less restrictions; and
WHEREAS, Amendment 1, titled "Rights of Electricity Consumers Regarding
Solar Energy Choice," will be presented to voters at the November 8, 2016 general
election; and
Page 1 of 4
Res. No. 196-16-14751
WHEREAS, Amendment 1 purports to provide a new "choice" for solar power in
its title, but no choices are provided in Amendment 1 and no new solar rights are created,
but instead, Amendment 1 will place critical restrictions on existing solar rights in the
Florida Constitution according to Florida Supreme Court Justice Barbara Pariente in her
dissent in Advisory Opinion to Atty. Gen. re Rights of Electricity Consumers regarding
Solar Energy Choice, 188 So.3d 822 (Fla. 2016); and •
WHEREAS, Justice Barbara Pariente wrote a minority opinion, supported by two
other justices, to warn the voters of a bait and switch tactic and stated:
"Let the pro-solar energy consumers beware. Masquerading as a pro-solar
energy initiative, this proposed constitutional amendment, supported by
some of Florida's major investor-owned electric utility companies, actually
seeks to constitutionalize the status quo. Due to the use and definitions of
certain terms within the proposed amendment, it may actually have the
effect of diminishing some rights of solar energy consumers. For example,
a group of environmental groups who filed a brief in opposition assert that
this amendment will eliminate" [a very desirable method of payment
called] "`pay-by-the-watt' leases by narrowly defining "lease," rendering
many ordinary consumers unable to afford the "tens of thousands of
dollars to purchase solar panels."
The minority also felt that"[t]he ballot title is affirmatively misleading by its focus
on "Solar Energy Choice," when no real choice exists for those who favor expansion of
solar energy." Also the minority found that "[t]he ballot language is further defective for
purporting to grant rights to solar energy consumers that are illusory; and failing, as
required, to clearly and unambiguously set forth the chief purpose of the proposed
• amendment — to maintain the status quo favoring the very electric utilities who are the
proponents of this amendment."
The minority opinion points out that "[w]hat the ballot summary does not say is
that there is already a right to use solar equipment for individual use afforded by the
Florida Constitution and existing Florida statutes and regulations. It does not explain that
the amendment will elevate the existing rights of the-government to regulate solar energy
use and establish that regulatory power as a constitutional right in Florida This is a
glaring omission, especially since rights enshrined in the Constitution are generally
intended to limit, rather than grant, governmental power." *** "This ballot initiative is the
proverbial `wolf in sheep's clothing."
The minority noted that:
"[the title of the ballot question] ... does not illuminate the real purpose,
namely, to place a critical restriction on those rights [to use solar
equipment] through elevating state and local governments' police powers
to regulate solar energy to the constitutional level."
***
"The ballot summary does not make clear that the right of homeowners to
own solar equipment for their own use already exists. As a result. it
Page 2 of 4
Res . No. 196-16-14751
•
creates a false impression that a vote in favor of the amendment is
necessary for the voter to be afforded the right at all."
***
"The impact is that the constitutional right that the amendment
purportedly creates in the first section [of Amendment 1] is seriously
diminished in the second section [of Amendment 1]. The proposed
amendment would have the practical effect of maintaining the status quo
with the balance of power in the hands of the utility companies."
***
"Clearly, this is an amendment geared to ensure nothing changes with
respect to the use of solar energy in Florida — it is not a "pro-solar"
amendment."
WHEREAS, Amendment 1 will establish a constitutional right and then give the •
government unbridled discretion to limit that right by later defining the meaning of the
word"subsidy"; and
WHEREAS, Amendment 1 will insert in the Florida Constitution an unsupported,
misleading,and inaccurate presumption that solar rooftop customers are "subsidized" by
solar customers; and
WHEREAS,Amendment 1 implies that the solar customers are not paying their
fair share of the cost of the grid and that FP&L will be forced to charge the non-solar
customer to pay for the cost not being paid by the solar customers. There has been no
evidence that this has occurred but even if it does,there is no need for a constitutional
amendment since the state has the right to regulate what FPL charges its customers
without a constitutional amendment. Moreover, solar electricity is more efficient than
electricity generated at a power plant. The electricity that starts at the power plant
dissipates as it travels along the transmission lines and requires that extra electricity be
generated to compensate for the loss in the transmission process whereas solar electricity
that is put into the grid reduces the cost to all customers since the solar electricity is used
locally. In addition, and currently, at the end of the year, solar customers who have a net
gain are only paid a fraction of what the power company charges its customers; and
WHEREAS, Amendment 1, if it passes, can be used to weaken or eliminate the
state's net metering policy; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting ("FCIR") reported
that, as early as April of 2015, there was already legislation circulating in Tallahassee in
an attempt to stop homeowners with solar power from selling extra energy back to utility
companies; and
WHEREAS, FCIR found that from 2010 to 2015 utility companies had invested
$12 million into the campaigns of state lawmakers. When FCIR asked one West Palm
Beach lobbyist who represents solar companies why we don't have a 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
on your roof is one less kilowatt that the utilities can sell you."; and
WHEREAS, Amendment 1 is sponsored by an organization called Consumers for
Smart Solar which appears to be primarily bankrolled by the state's big power companies
all of whom appear to be opposed to the current net metering policy; and
WHEREAS, the ballot question for Amendment 1 is titled "Rights of Electricity
Consumers Regarding Solar Energy Choice" and, as it is described above, it is detrimental
to the City of South Miami's previously expressed support for efforts to increase solar
energy generation and other forms of renewable energy in the City of South Miami, and in
the State of Florida.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND. CTTY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI,FLORIDA,THAT:
Section 1. The City Commission finds that the recital set forth hereinabove are
true and correct and they are hereby adopted by reference as if set forth in full herein.
Section 2. The City Clerk is hereby instructed to send a copy of this resolution
to all the voters of the City of South Miami as well as to all the Cities and Counties in the
state of Florida for the purpose of informing them of the facts surrounding Amendment 1,
the effect that the amendment will have on the consumers of electricity, the ramifications
of the amendment and the apparent agenda of the supporters of this proposed
constitutional amendment.
Section 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5thday of October , 2016.
• TTEST: APPROVED:
ile6f4,44
CLE MAY
_ I READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM, COMMISSION VOTE 5-0
LANGUAG _dALITY, Mayor Stoddard: Yea
=iv II ION T '4(.0F: Vice Mayor Welsh: Yea
Commissioner Edmond: Yea
Commissioner Harris: Yea
L,IAP � Commissioner Liebman: Yea
CI V TTORNE
Page 4 of 4