After heated debate, "clean" energy bill moves out of Senate committee

This morning SB 1154 moved out of the Florida Senate's Communications, Energy and Public Utilities committee "after heated debate," reports the Sun-Sentinel's Julie Patel on the "House Keys" blog.

If the Bill makes it into law it would require 20 percent of Florida's power to be "clean" energy by 2020 -- though nuclear energy would be allowed to constitute a full 25% of that quota, with 50% coming from wind and solar and an additional 25% from biomass and other renewables.

As Patel writes, "FPL has said it supports including new nuclear power to help curb costs and promote fuel diversity."

You bet! And, hey, the bill includes language that would authorize a "Go Green Florida" license plate, to boot!

Read Julie Patel's full blog post on SB 1154, here.

FPL, solar and RECs: higher costs, fewer jobs and less clean energy for consumers

Interesting story last week in the Sarasota Herald Tribune outlines the battle over solar energy looming between big power companies like FPL and consumers, as the legislature is poised to pass a new energy law requiring power companies to generate 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

The story, by Zac Anderson, points out that State legislators are favoring the system known as renewable energy credits, or RECS, which some business groups and environmentalists believe "would give windfall profits to large energy companies, cost consumers more and generate fewer local jobs and less clean energy."

The REC system would ...

... allow utilities to decide who can sell them solar energy based on a bidding process, resulting primarily in large, centralized solar developments. Opponents of the REC system say an alternative program, called a "feed-in tariff," encourages more small-scale solar development on homes and businesses by setting a price for solar energy that makes it profitable for anyone with open land or roof space. The system also forces electric utilities to buy energy from everyone.

And where does FPL fit in this story? The paper writes:

Florida Power & Light, the state's largest energy provider, criticizes feed-in tariffs as expensive and anti-competitive. So do representatives for large solar companies such as Maryland-based SunEdison, which has begun contracting with utilities to build big solar power plants in Florida. The deals have stirred intense infighting in the solar industry nationwide as small local businesses are pushed aside by larger corporations. Dismissing the Renewable Energy Lab's conclusions, FPL's vice president and chief development officer, Eric Silagy, said, "Any time you get into prescriptive government-set rates, you chill innovation."

And, why would FPL and other energy giants favor RECs? Take a guess ...

The REC system has resulted in substantially higher energy profits in places like New Jersey and the United Kingdom and much higher electricity prices for consumers than the more simplified feed-in tariff policy.

Read the full Sarasota Herald-Tribune story online, here.

Nuclear would get 25% of all new "clean energy" under Florida Senate bill

The Florida Senate's energy and utilities committee is set to hear first thing Tuesday morning Senate Bill 1154, which would define nuclear power as "clean energy" and allow for a full 25% of all new "clean energy" generated in the State to come from nuclear power.

The St. Pete Times reports today that only half of new clean energy in the State as defined by the Senate bill would actually come from wind and solar, with another 25% from biomass, solid waste and other renewables.

The Times' staff says that "lobbyists for companies including Gulf Power and FPL hurried to the Capitol this morning to dissect the committee's just-released proposal for new "clean energy" standards in Florida." FPL and Progress Florida each have nuclear plant proposals under consideration by the Florida Public Service Commission.

The Times also says that no Florida House bill has yet been filed and that House members are waiting to see what happens with the Senate bill.

Track SB 1154's progress, here.

Read the full text of SB 1154, here.

Read the story at the St. Pete Times "The Buzz" Florida Politics blog, here.

Competing FL Senate bills signal battle over "clean" vs "renewable energy"

The Tampa Tribune reports today on the battle lines being drawn in the State Legislature over the definition of "clean" energy versus truly "renewable" energy sources.

Sen. Lee Constantine (R-Altamonte Springs) has introduced "Senate Bill 2490, a measure requiring that 20 percent of the power provided by Florida electric utilities be made with renewable resources such as wind and solar," the paper reports.

That bill is now up against "SB 2328, that would require utilities to get 20 percent of their power from 'clean' energy sources, including nuclear, by 2020," introduced by Sen. Charlie Dean (R-Inverness).

Dean's bill supports the efforts of FPL and others to have "nuclear" defined as clean energy within the parameters set by Gov. Christ for taking Florida "green" by 2020. The Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) has already rejected that definition, but it appears that nuclear-friendly lawmakers are now trying to legislate the definition in Tallahassee.

According to the Trib, "nuclear power accounts for 18 percent of the electricity produced by Progress Energy. FPL produces about 19 percent of its power from nuclear plants."

The Tampa Tribune story can be read online, here.

Miami Herald, WWF get it wrong on FPL and the "renewable portfolio standard"

Hat tip to gimleteye over at Eye on Miami for Sunday's post taking to task the Miami Herald's editorial support of the "'renewable portfolio standard'' that is up for consideration by the legislature at Gov. Charlie Crist's behest.

Titled "FPL and environmentalists: one hand giveth, the other hand taketh away...," the post rightfully points out the shortsightedness of the Herald's editorial, "Solar power vital to state's future," for its having failed to note that FPL has lobbied hard to include "nuclear energy" in Gov. Crist's so-called "renewable portfolio standard."

Stop FPL has posted previously here and here on FPL's efforts to have nuclear power redefined as "renewable" energy and to have it included in the State's diversified energy portfolio.

But, in all the media hooplah over FPL's groundbreaking last week over a solar plant in De Soto County -- at a mere 25-megawatts, representing a miniscule portion of FPL's overall electric power output for the State of Florida -- the FPL PR machine showed its prowess, managing to arrange to have some on-side environmentalists like the World Wildlife Fund's Debbie Harrison pronounce in the energy giant's favor and to use that to obfuscate the real story for reporters and editorial writers around the State.

As gimleteye so rightfully pointed out, such environmentalist support for FPL's meager solar initiatives belies the fact that:

FPL is hell-bent on destroying Biscayne National Park: not by direct impacts from nuclear power, but from rock mining nearby to get fill for its massive footprint and from water supply for the new cooling units that put the entire region at risk. The company is spending vast amounts of ratepayer dollars to push its plan through local and state permitting processes; witholding key aspects of the plan until they can be rushed through at the last moment, according to predetermined outcomes.

By including nuclear in the state requirements for what qualifies to be "renewable", FPL can minimize the effort to get consumers to use solar. Surely, Ms. Harrision knows that FPL and its brethren continue to resist fundamental reform of the regulatory structure in Florida. By centralizing solar through massive PV arrays it owns, FPL can control its business model. When consumers use solar on their rooftops or in their backyards, the control FPL can exert is massively fragmented.

Couldn't have said it better ourselves!

Eye on Miami is to be commended for pointing this out and the Miami Herald should be ashamed for having overlooked the obvious contradictions in the Governor's "renewable energy portfolio."

It's one thing to have FPL press releases disseminated and reposted across the Web, it's quite another for the editorial writers at the formerly august Miami Herald to swallow the FPL PR machine's pronouncements without bothering to do real investigation into the story behind the story ...

Florida renewable energy groups call for $114 million trust fund

A different kind of campaign to effect political change than the type we're accustomed to seeing from FPL and its lobbyists is being generated by three Florida energy groups that have banded together in the Florida Clean Energy Campaign.

Last week, the Florida Renewable Energy Association, Florida Alliance for Renewable Energy and Florida Renewable Energy Producers Association banded together to announce their support for a $114 million "clean energy fund to help solve the crisis in funding the state's renewable energy programs."

Called the Florida Clean Energy Trust Fund, the idea is to tap into the estimated 80% of Floridians who have told pollsters that they would be willing to pay up to $1 per month extra on their electric bill to support solar development programs.

See the announcement online at RenewableEnergyWorld.com.

More information abo0ut the Florida Clean Energy Trust Fund is online, here.

FPL reports delay in solar plant construction

FPl has reported a delay in the start of construction of its Space Coast solar power plant, reported Florida Today newspaper.

FPL had intended the start building the $78.9 million 10-megawatt Space Coast Next Generation Solar Energy Center in late 2008, the paper reported, but a delay announced in October has been followed by a further delay of today's rescheduled groundbreaking.

Apparently to avoid conflict with NASA's launch schedule, the groundbreaking has now been reset for May 2009. Company officials could not say when the plant would become operational.

Read the full Florida Today story online here.