Solar amendment supporters, opponents square off before Florida Supreme CourtTALLAHASSEE Sep 1 - McClatchy-Tribune Content Agency, LLC - Michael Auslen Tampa Bay Times, St. Petersburg, Fla.Arguing in the Supreme Court Tuesday over whether a solar power constitutional amendment is valid, supporters of Floridians for Solar Choice and opponents backed by utility companies didn't pull punches. "What has really chilled the regulatory environment currently is a solar energy device that a person would have, they're not allowed to sell that to someone else without falling into the regulatory scheme of the Public Service Commission," said Bob Nabors, lawyer for Floridians for Solar Choice. But Barry Richard, a lawyer representing four utility companies, including Duke and Florida Power and Light, called the proposed language misleading. So did a laywer for electricity cooperatives in rural parts of the state and Solicitor General Allen Winsor. "You can't make voters believe that there's a problem when you have no basis for saying that," Richard told the justices. The proposed constitutional amendment would stop the state and local governments from treating "local solar electricity suppliers" as utilities, effectively removing them from regulation. These companies install solar panels on a home or business and then sell the power they generate to consumers. Supporters argue that it will drive down the cost of electricity and open up the market to competition for the monopoly utility companies. But utilities and their supporters say it merely eliminates regulation meant to keep people safe and will put consumers at risk with limited protections. The court, however, isn't supposed to weigh in on the merits of each argument, as Justice Barbara Pariente repeatedly reminded both sides during a public hearing in the Court's Tallahassee chambers. Rather, the justices have a few specific questions to answer. Does the ballot language, which Floridians for Solar Choice wants in the November 2016 election, fairly represent what the amendment would do? And is it limited to just one subject? Should the court decide in the amendment's favor, the group will have until February to get another 562,000 signatures on a petition for it to be on the ballot. They'll also face a mounting campaign against them, driven by the utility companies. Contact Michael Auslen at mauslen@tampabay.com. Follow Michael Auslen. http://www.energycentral.com/functional/news/news_detail.cfm?did=37242652 |