Bill to raise utility rates for clean energy clears committee
 |
| Both the House and Senate |
Legislation that would tighten ethics rules for utility regulators and allow utilities to charge customers to create or buy more renewable energy has started moving in both the House and Senate.
The Senate utilities committee on Monday approved a bill it drafted, SB 2078, to allow the renewable energy charges during a 5-year pilot period. The House's utilities committee approved a similar bill it drafted, HB 7217, last week to allow utilities to charge customers up to $1.5 billion over four years for new renewable energy, including $824 million for Florida Power & Light.
Bill faces fierce debate
Supporters told Senators today that the bill could jumpstart Florida's renewable energy industry, create thousands of jobs and reduce the state's dependence on foreign sources of oil.
Those who spoke up to back the bill today include some that have or are partnering with FPL on solar projects, including Kitson & Partners, a Palm Beach Gardens real estate developer, and SunPower, which sold FPL solar panels for two of its plants and has expressed interest in possibly bringing a manufacturing plant to Florida if the bill passes.
David Hart, an executive vice president of the Florida Chamber of Commerce, said the group also supports the bill because it's not a "mandate:" It does not require utilities to build renewble energy projects but gives them the option.
"So the chamber has changed its position to support a tax increase of almost $400 million" a year? asked Sen. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey. This is a "mandate on every consumer and small business owner that they're going to be hit with a tax increase."
"We don't view it as a tax increase," Hart said.
Nathan Skop, a former regulator, also framed the bill as a "legislative tax on Florida ratepayers and a corporate handout" to FPL, owned by NextEra Energy, which raised its dividend by 16 percent since regulators rejected its record rate hike request. He said he opposes the bill but supports renewable energy.
Michele Curtis, a manager at Buckeye Technologies pulp company, said she opposes the bill because it allows more rate hikes and the company is already paying double what some of its competitors in other states are paying for electricity. It "makes us less competitive," she said.
Jon Moyle, who represents large businesses that use electricity such as paper mills and grocery stores, challenged the notion that the bill would reduce Florida's dependence on foreign oil. He noted that most of Florida's power comes from coal, nuclear and natural gas, mostly from other states such as Texas. He also said three solar plants FPL built under similar legislation in 2008 only generated 12 permanent jobs and some of the solar panels used were made in the Philippines.
The plants also created 5,000 temporary jobs, according to the utility. "While obviously all construction project jobs are temporary by nature, legislation enabling investment in large-scale solar projects could get thousands of Floridians back to work quickly while driving the broader expansion of renewable energy," FPL Spokesman Mark Bubriski wrote in an email. "Our hope is that someday soon the Sunshine State will be exporting solar panels, not importing them."
Some changes to the bill approved
The Senate utilities committee on Monday approved a bill it drafted, SB 2078, to allow the renewable energy charges during a 5-year pilot period. The House's utilities committee approved a similar bill it drafted, HB 7217, last week to allow utilities to charge customers up to $1.5 billion over four years for new renewable energy, including $824 million for Florida Power & Light.
Bill faces fierce debate
Supporters told Senators today that the bill could jumpstart Florida's renewable energy industry, create thousands of jobs and reduce the state's dependence on foreign sources of oil.
Those who spoke up to back the bill today include some that have or are partnering with FPL on solar projects, including Kitson & Partners, a Palm Beach Gardens real estate developer, and SunPower, which sold FPL solar panels for two of its plants and has expressed interest in possibly bringing a manufacturing plant to Florida if the bill passes.
David Hart, an executive vice president of the Florida Chamber of Commerce, said the group also supports the bill because it's not a "mandate:" It does not require utilities to build renewble energy projects but gives them the option.
"So the chamber has changed its position to support a tax increase of almost $400 million" a year? asked Sen. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey. This is a "mandate on every consumer and small business owner that they're going to be hit with a tax increase."
"We don't view it as a tax increase," Hart said.
Nathan Skop, a former regulator, also framed the bill as a "legislative tax on Florida ratepayers and a corporate handout" to FPL, owned by NextEra Energy, which raised its dividend by 16 percent since regulators rejected its record rate hike request. He said he opposes the bill but supports renewable energy.
Michele Curtis, a manager at Buckeye Technologies pulp company, said she opposes the bill because it allows more rate hikes and the company is already paying double what some of its competitors in other states are paying for electricity. It "makes us less competitive," she said.
Jon Moyle, who represents large businesses that use electricity such as paper mills and grocery stores, challenged the notion that the bill would reduce Florida's dependence on foreign oil. He noted that most of Florida's power comes from coal, nuclear and natural gas, mostly from other states such as Texas. He also said three solar plants FPL built under similar legislation in 2008 only generated 12 permanent jobs and some of the solar panels used were made in the Philippines.
The plants also created 5,000 temporary jobs, according to the utility. "While obviously all construction project jobs are temporary by nature, legislation enabling investment in large-scale solar projects could get thousands of Floridians back to work quickly while driving the broader expansion of renewable energy," FPL Spokesman Mark Bubriski wrote in an email. "Our hope is that someday soon the Sunshine State will be exporting solar panels, not importing them."
Some changes to the bill approved
 |
| The Bill Approved |
The Senate utilities committee rejected a change proposed by Sen. Thad Altman, R-Viera, to effectively allow companies that are not utilities to build renewable energy systems and sell the electricity directly to customers. It would have required 20 percent of the money utilities spend on renewable energy come from whichever independent renewable energy companies can sell the power the cheapest.
Terry Deason, a former regulator that now lobbies for FPL, Progress Energy, Gulf Power and Tampa Electric Co., said he opposes the idea because it could affect the reliability of utility service. He said utilities, unlike independent renewable enegy, are fully regulated because they must provide service to all customers at all times.
"The last speaker touched me," said Sen. Gwen Margolis, D-Miami, referring to Deason. "The one thing we need is reliable energy to move forward."
Sen. Lizbeth Benacquisto, R-Wellington, chairwoman of the committee, said she'd try to ensure the bill allowed for some competition but opposes Altman's idea as well.
The committee approved Benacquisto's proposal to change the bill to cap any increases at 2 percent of utility customers' average bill. The change "puts ratepayers first," she said.
It's unclear whether the cap allows an increase of up to 2 percent cap each of the five years or just once over the 5-year period, so Fasano proposed clarifying it to say it's a one-time increase of 2 percent.
Benacquisto opposed Fasano's change and the committee rejected it.
Fasano also proposed changing the bill to repeal a law that allows utilities to charge customers for design and planning costs for nuclear plants before the plants are built, or even approved by federal regulators. The committee rejected it by a 9 to 5 vote.
The committee also approved SB 212 by Fasano aimed at tightening rules on how the state's Public Service Commission communicates with the companies it regulates, among other things. The House utilities committee drafted a similar bill that also aims to create a "firewall" between commissioners and certain staffers and change how the state's utility consumer advocate operates.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment