One of our favorite channels on the social media site reddit is r/explainlikeimfive (or ELI5), an acronym for “explain like I'm five.” It works like so: A user posts a question about a complex topic or issue, one he or she might be a little embarrassed to know little about, things like “What is the difference between nihilism and existentialism?” and “Why does pepper make us sneeze?”
Other users then chime in via the comments section, and their explanations get voted up or down, with the best one typically landing at or near the top of the comments section.
Given Florida's confusing debate over solar power, we thought a proposed state Constitutional amendment on August's ballot deserved the ELI5 treatment, and sought explanation from the amendment's key backers.
What is Amendment 4?
The name of the initiative, "Solar Devices or Renewable Energy Source Devices; Exemption from Certain Taxation and Assessment," isn't what one would call sexy.
And as with many state Constitutional amendment proposals, the ballot language isn't exactly beach reading. It has to be dense so that it's less open to interpretation when the legislature goes to implement it.
But, basically, the amendment does two things.
First, it would allow businesses that install rooftop solar to subtract the value of their solar panels from the overall value of their property when calculating property taxes. There's already such a policy in place for homeowners who installed their systems before 2013, but this extends the exemption to homeowners who have done so since, as well as to commercial property owners.
Second, the amendment exempts solar equipment from the tangible personal property tax. The hope is that the tax savings will spur more homes and businesses to install solar.
Despite Florida's solar energy potential (third in the country), and despite the 80 percent drop in the cost of solar equipment over the past decade, the Sunshine State has been slow to embrace the technology.
Advocates say the benefits are numerous, especially for consumers, who are often on the hook whenever a power company wants to build a new plant (whether or not it ultimately does).
“So it can help to avoid building new power plants,” said Susan Glickman, Florida director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. “It can help to diversify our fuel mix.”
Who put it on the ballot?
Unlike most State Constitutional amendments, this one was placed on the ballot by state lawmakers rather than by petition. The Florida House and Senate are often divided, but the vote to get this on the ballot was unanimous.
It has widespread support among a host of different entities, from enviro nonprofits to faith groups.
The initiative needs 60 percent of voter approval to pass, which supporters think will come easily.
“If you judge it on the unanimous support of the constitutional amendment, you'll see there is very strong support for solar,” said State Sen. Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg, the bill's Senate sponsor. “And this gives everybody a win. It's pretty amazing that we were able to get both Republicans and Democrats to rally around the constitutional amendment.”
What would its financial benefits be?
Currently, when a business installs a system valued at $30,000, it's taxed at 2 percent — that's $600 more it has to pay in taxes. That cost would go away if the amendment passes.
Plus, with cheaper solar available, companies could save money on their power bills — savings they could in theory pass on to consumers, whereas now major utilities can hike rates practically whenever they like (given that their state-level regulator, the Public Service Commission, tends to let them do what they want).
“Every time energy costs go up for Publix, that means your eggs go up,” said Glickman.
So why do some people oppose it, then?
There's not really what one would call serious opposition to the measure, unless you count whoever (probably) paid Rev. Al Sharpton to fly to South Florida to give an awkward press conference in which he called it a corporate giveaway, saying its passage would take taxes off the rolls. Those taxes, he said, are needed for social programs and community development efforts throughout the state.
Other than that, criticism has been nil; even the utilities haven't spent any money trying to oppose it.
Well, what about the loss of those tax dollars, then?
A huge concern about cutting taxes is always going to be the loss in revenue needed by governments to help citizens meet their basic needs, while those that don't really need that money get to keep it, invest it overseas, etc.
But the solar industry is so small in Florida that tax dollars “lost” from the Amendment 4 tax breaks would be negligible, Glickman said.
“It would be unreal, not true, to say that a bunch of taxes are going to come off the rolls, because the systems just don't exist now,” she said.
Out of 9 million houses and businesses that use electricity in Florida, about 12,000 have solar — less than a tenth of a percent, she said — which doesn't amount to much in tax revenue.
And in the long run, more solar means lower power bills, fewer power plants and possibly a reduction in the social cost of fossil fuel reliance, i.e. the pollution generated by fossil fuel-powered energy and the environmental and health issues it causes.
“When you avoid building power plants you avoid the pollution that inevitably ends up in poorer neighborhoods,” Glickman said.
Why the August ballot?
It's unclear.
A cynic might look at it and say maybe those who placed it on the ballot hoped to see it fail, a victim of low Democratic voter turnout.
Yet the measure had unanimous support in the legislature, an incredibly diverse coalition of dozens of groups is pushing it, and polling shows that support for solar in Florida transcends party lines.
It's possible that lawmakers don't want voters to get confused, as there's an amendment on the November ballot having to do with solar, though whether that other amendment would truly help grow solar is questionable, if not doubtful. Having the two on different ballots could help draw a clearer distinction between the two.
What about that other amendment?
It's called Consumers for Smart Solar, and it's backed largely by power companies. It launched in 2015 as a means to take down yet another solar amendment, Floridians for Solar Choice, which would have made it legal for solar panel owners to sell power to neighbors and tenants rather than back to power companies. Smart Solar launched an aggressive petition-gathering effort that seemed to confuse voters (all while paying signature gatherers significantly more per petition). They succeeded in keeping Solar Choice off the ballot.
But all it really does is enshrine into the state Constitution the current rules on who can sell solar (i.e., the utilities).
While most solar boosters are pushing “Yes on 4 in August, No on 1 in November,” it's unclear whether all of the Amendment 4 backers will turn their energy toward defeating the other proposal in the fall.
“Until our amendment passes, I'm pretty much solely focused on Amendment 4,” Brandes said.
This article appears in Aug 18-25, 2016.