Sarasota Power
Email: SarasotaPower@gmail.com
-
Recent Comments
Rob on City of Sarasota and FPL reach… joan mckniff on City of Sarasota and FPL reach… Larry Grossman on Breaking away from big power n… Abby on FPL’s power lock Lauren on Top 10 Reasons NOT To Sign Ano…
Greetings, Have any of you information on the costs to buy FPL’s equipment or what the startup costs of the muni – electric organization will be ?
Thank you,
SU
Shawn,
That is the information that we are in the process of gathering. The City has hired a fine lawyer who is working on just that. He is one of the presenters at the Energy Town Hall. I hope you will be there to ask him that very question.
I am the president of the suncoast electric vehicle association. If sarasota creates their own power utility there is another revenue stream they can tap into, recharging electric cars. By implementing a network of charging stations in city parking lots with premium parking, the city can have these spots filled by electric car owners charging while they are working. there are companies that operate Neighborhood electric vehicles as short distance taxis that would also need to plug in during the day. If a power utility owned by the city puts in the charging stations they will then be able to collect all the fees gathered, the same as parking meters but more income. Another step would to be to build solar power generated recharging stations that can recharge elkectric cars and also feed unused power back into the grid.
If possible I would like to present this idea to the city commission at the next meeting.
I have been working with Nina Powers in regards to EVs for sarasota county and the city of sarasota.
Michael,
i am sure the City Commission would love to meet with you. They will also be at the town hall this coming Tuesday. You should plan on being there.
Just found your site. Why would the city want to take on the responsibility for providing power to the residents? Is there some profit incentive? Can a small city provide electricity cheaper and more reliably than a large utility?
Michael,
There are a lot of benefits to the city owning it’s own utility company. For one – it put the power back into the hands of the people. That means that the people can decide how to obtain their energy. If you take a look at Gainesville, you will see that in less than a year they will have reduced their use of coal for energy down to 20%. Those are amazing numbers. 78% of the citizens voted to spend a few extra dollars on their bill to invest in renewable energy projects that will not only reduce their carbon footprint, but also promote a new industry in their town. It’s worth learning about how they are doing some amazing things.
How can you compare Gainesville to our city. I would suspect that there is a big difference from a city that has had a municipal electric system for a long time and one that is trying to take over a system.
Gainesville is an example that we can strive. But we are doing out research. At the last City meeting on this topic – we had the City Manager from Winter Park (Who broke away from Progress Energy) to help us understand the process.
48% of our citizens want to explore this possibility. That is what we are doing. We don’t know all of the answers yet, but we are working towards getting them.
48% is not a majority of the citizens
Yes – you are correct. I should have stated that 21% said that they did not know and 38% said no. My confidence in this poll is that this is without any education about what it all means. This is just the initial reaction to how they feel about FPL and what the direction that they want their City to take when it comes to renewable energy. That is why I feel this town hall is so important. This is how we can all become educated in what all of the options are – not just the 30 year agreement with FPL. Which by the way, have you had a chance to take a look at the breakdown of the negotiations? I have posted them under http://sarasotapower.wordpress.com/fpl-vs-city-position-paper/ It says a lot on how little FPL is willing to improve on their relationship with the City.
FP&L has an Avian Protection Plan in place. How effective has their plan been and what measures have they taken in that service area to install pole caps on linesfrequently used by protected raptors? Have they done a risk analysis regarding proximity of Bald Eagle nests to power lines and put up swan diverters in those locations? What will a municpal power company be able to do better regarding protection plans for avian, mammal and marine species?
That is a very good question. I cannot speak on behalf of FPL, but I do know someone who might be able to answer the question better than I. I will see if I can get her to chime in.
As far as a Municipal Utility goes, I know the result would be better. If you think about it, with a City run utility – the people have a much easier time communicating tier concerns and issues. For every Commissioner that sits on the panel – they have to look out in the audience and see their neighbor, their friend, their colleagues… which means the weight of the request will have a greater impact than a large corporation half way across the state who doesn’t even know your name.
Fair and Equitable
FPL and the City of Sarasota
There are a number of issues relative to any discussion about the franchise agreement between the City of Sarasota and Florida Power and Light (FPL). Some of these are that FPL is a monopoly; which restrictions apply, or should apply, to FPL as a monopoly; the percentage return that FPL receives on its investment; why FPL continually asks for rate increases which would put its rate of return higher than is justified; whether FPL’s coal fired plants are polluting excessively; how FPL plans to go Green, etc.
Focusing on the last point – FPL going Green – brings up an interesting side issue, which may actually overshadow some of the others.
It is my understanding that FPL has built and, hopefully, will continue to build solar farms to generate additional electricity. Because the elected representatives of the state of Florida wish to show they are for alternative energy generation, they have given incentives to FPL whereby FPL can invest in these solar farms and recoup their investment.
FPL is now allowed to cover these costs by adding a surcharge to the bills it sends its customers. I would imagine that the wording for the bill granting FPL this right was drafted by FPL lobbyists. The reasoning probably went along the line of “We have to give FPL the right to recoup its investment because otherwise there will be no investors willing to back alternative energy. If FPL invests from their cash reserves they will not have enough money left to do required, ongoing maintenance and they can not pay for the expansion with retained earnings as they would then make less money than they are allowed by law”.
While all the above facts are true, certain other facts have been left out which are also true. What FPL, its lobbyists and the senators and representatives who voted for the bill are practicing is Corporate Socialism, not Capitalism.
Under the rules of Capitalism, when a company is started it offers stock for sale. Investors bid on the stock and a price is established. If 1 million shares are offered and investors pay an average of $10 per share, the new company receives $10 million to start its business. If the company later finds it wishes to expand at a rate faster than retained earnings would allow, it offers more stock for sale. If another $2 million is needed and the stock is still at $10 per share they would sell 200,000 more shares. All things being equal, the old and new investors now own shares that are worth $10 each in a company that is now worth $12 million. If the planned expansion goes well all investors will make a good and equal return on their investment. That is how Capitalism is supposed to work.
Yes, since solar power is not a proven (low cost – high output) technology, many investors are leery of putting their money into such an alternative energy scheme. And if investors won’t invest, and if FPL does not have the cash reserves and if it is the wrong time for the State of Florida to be giving out grants (before the fact bailouts) maybe FPL customers are the easy alternative solution to cover the costs for these new capital investments. But why not give the customers shares in FPL in return for these forced investments. The way it stands now, the customers are the new investors with the old investors receiving free (to them) money. The original investors will own a larger company without having made any additional investment. The end result is that our government in Tallahassee is forcing people to pay money to those who have done nothing to earn it. Isn’t that what Fox News is calling Socialism?
FPL’s answer might be “Ah, but what if the solar farms aren’t efficient enough? Then the new $2 million that is invested through the surcharge would add little value to the company. There would be 1.2 million shares in a $10 million company with each share now being worth only $8.33. Through no fault of their own the original investors would have lost $1.67 per share”.
The simple solution would be to issue a separate class of stock to customers in exchange for the surcharge which they have paid. This new stock would only be valued and allowed to be sold after enough time had passed to see how well this form of alternative energy had performed. If it has not worked out well the new class of stock might have a value of 25 – 50¢ per share. Or, if it works out really well, maybe $8.50 per share. The old investors would have lost nothing and the new investors would have received cleaner energy and some return on their investment should they choose to sell their stock. That is how Capitalism is supposed to work.
If there is any value to the above argument the City of Sarasota (and Sarasota County and the State of Florida) should include it in their discussions with FPL and all other energy generation companies.