Solar advocates sound alarm over GOP-backed bills to end subsidies in Florida

A Republican-backed proposal to slash rooftop solar subsidies is advancing through Florida’s legislature — deepening divides between supporters of the industry and the Sunshine State’s largest utility.

The push involves two companion bills, SB 1024 and HB 741, which would mandate changes to Florida’s “net metering” system: reductions to the paybacks that rooftop solar customers receive for the excess power they generate and the possibility of grid connection fees.

While the lawmakers behind the bills argue that such changes would ensure that Floridians who cannot afford solar are not shouldering high electricity costs on behalf of their wealthier neighbors, opponents say that such action would torpedo statewide solar adoption.

“It would definitely put a huge, not just chilling effect, on jobs, but really a loss of jobs and careers and businesses,” Ben Millar, CEO of Tampa-based Sun Harvest Energy, told The Hill.

Millar, who serves on the board of the Florida Solar Energy Industries Association, added that companies like his own are trying to foster energy independence and help homeowners save money.

“Those savings are under attack,” he said.

The state Senate version of the bill was initially on the schedule at Tuesday’s Rules Committee — the last stop before the Senate floor — but was scrapped from the agenda prior to the session.

“The bill was removed at the request of the sponsor who needed additional time as she continues to work with the House sponsor,” a Rules Committee spokesperson told The Hill, referring to state Sen. Jennifer Bradley (R) and state Rep. Lawrence McClure (R), respectively.

Because the bill has encountered “a lot of public testimony in prior committee stops,” the panel chose to remove the item instead of temporarily postponing it during the meeting to ensure people had advance notice, the spokesperson added.

The House bill, meanwhile, is still in the State Administration & Technology Appropriations Subcommittee and never appeared on this week’s committee agenda.

Florida’s regular legislative session ends on March 11.

A similar solar squabble has been rattling California, where that state’s Public Utility Commission has proposed both reducing paybacks and charging a fee, as reported by The Hill. But the Floridian fight is occurring at the legislative level, and only following Senate and House approval would the bills task Florida’s Public Service Commission with making reforms. 

If passed, the Florida legislation would require the commission to propose a revised net metering rule on or before Jan. 1, 2023, ensuring that rooftop customers “pay the full cost of electric service” and that “all energy delivered by the public utility is purchased at the public utility’s applicable retail rate,” according to the text of the Senate bill.

The adjustments would occur in a gradual manner, with credit dropping to 75 percent of the public utility’s retail rate — the current compensation amount — in 2024 and 2025. It would fall to 50 percent of the rate in 2026 and 2027. In 2028, the rate would match the utility’s full “avoided costs,” or the costs a utility avoids in not needing to generate that power.

Customers who own or lease systems that went into service before Jan. 1, 2023, would be able to maintain their existing rates for 20 years from the installation date.

The bill also stipulates that the commission could institute fixed charges such as electric grid access fees or monthly minimum bills.

Both environmental activists and solar industry backers have accused the Sunshine State’s largest utility, Florida Power & Light (FPL), of pushing for the proposed legislation.

Internal emails obtained by a Miami Herald-Floodlight investigation in December showed that an FPL lobbyist had sent the bill’s text to Bradley’s staff a month before she introduced an almost identical bill. While FPL’s parent company, NextEra, allegedly contributed $10,000 to Bradley’s campaign in the interim, Bradley told the reporters that the donation was unrelated. 

Bradley did not respond to The Hill’s repeated requests for comment.

Regarding these exchanges with Bradley, FPL spokesperson Chris McGrath told The Hill in a statement that since 2020, the company has “been engaged in constructive dialogue with numerous lawmakers regarding this important issue.”

“We provided our recommendation for a fair and equitable way to modernize Florida’s net metering rules that are more than a decade old,” the statement said, noting that ultimately, however, it is the lawmakers who “decide the exact language that will be included in a bill that they choose to sponsor.”

As far as the donation is concerned, McGrath said he could not discuss specific contributions, but explained that “like most Americans and all companies, Florida Power & Light Company participates in the political process” because business is affected by policy decisions.

“All political contributions — which are paid for by shareholders, not customers — comply with all applicable laws and are properly disclosed as required,” the statement continued.

While FPL supports “all types of solar energy,” the utility believes that both customers and the state “benefit the most when the largest amount of solar is installed at the lowest cost” — large-scale solar projects, according to McGrath. FPL has built and operates more such plants than any other utility nationwide, he added.

“We do not oppose net metering, we oppose the subsidy received by 0.5 percent of our customers and paid for by the other 99.5 percent,” the statement said.

Millar, who launched his company Sun Harvest Energy just a few months ago, said he believes that the legislation could jeopardize businesses, recalling a similar situation in Nevada in which “thousands of jobs were lost almost immediately.”

He contended “that there is minimal if not no impact on non-solar users from rooftop solar,” particularly at Florida’s low solar adoption rate.

Katie Chiles Ottenweller, southeast director for the advocacy organization Vote Solar, echoed Millar’s sentiments, stressing that Florida has a less than 1 percent adoption rate. In comparison, about 1.2 million Californian homes — roughly 9 percent of that state’s total households — have solar panels.

“We are really hoping that we can get to the point where the rooftop solar jobs in Florida are protected, where the market is allowed to coexist with electric utilities,” Chiles Ottenweller said. “But we’re certainly in a very urgent situation, and these are people fighting for their livelihood.”

Democrats who serve Florida on a national level have also stepped into the fray, warning state lawmakers in a letter that these bills would make it harder for homeowners to go solar.

The letter, sent by Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) with five of her colleagues, argued that rooftop solar “is a true cost-saver” that provides more than 40,000 jobs and generates almost $3.2 billion in household income. The representatives expressed concern that the bills could stunt economic growth in Florida, a state whose gas reliance exposes residents “to volatile swings” in prices.

But John Grant, president and executive director of Seniors Across America, argued on his group’s site that the proposed legislation would reduce “hidden costs for those without solar panels” and help “millions of Florida ratepayers, including seniors on fixed incomes.”

Chiles Ottenweller, on the other hand, countered that if the bill passes, solar energy will lose its growing popularity among working-class Floridians and become a privilege “just for rich people.”

“It just won’t be accessible anymore,” Chiles Ottenweller added. “It’ll wipe out the leasing market.”

Turning to broader financial ramifications, Millar slammed lawmakers for weighing in on a market with which he feels they are unfamiliar. The rooftop solar industry generates $18.3 billion in economic impact for Florida, he said, citing a November study by Conservatives for Clean Energy.

“The law was written not to just change up what they thought was a fair amount of money,” Millar added. “The law is written to actually destroy the industry, and to make sure that there isn’t an industry there to give people choice.”