Solar panels cause homeowner to lose insurance coverage

[BMWTurboDzl]

Believe it or not, the state of Florida, county governments, and the power companies do not want solar installed on residential properties.
Years ago there was a state law enacted (and later rescinded) that made solar panels illegal on residential properties.
The only reason it's allowed is because it's popular as a cost saving green energy source.
It is entirely the responsibility of the homeowner to ensure solar installation is done properly.
The power company only cares about the connection to the grid.
The county only cares about the paperwork.
The state officials only care about collecting money from the lobbyists.
And the insurance company will find any reason to raise your rates as there is no regulation.

Gangster Governance. Unfortunately it starts with the governor.

 

[flash7210]

But, this is not a solar issue. It is Florida, it is astonishing what mess insurance is there.
I think last August they topped as the least affordable state to live bcs. that, now I think they are second.

One of the many reasons I'm planning to leave Florida

 

[Astro14]

OK, we’re turning this into politics, bashing a state, and a referendum on one politician. Let’s take a break.

 

[dnewton3]

The REASON for the insurance cancellation is the fact that the solar array is over some "tier" rating, of which there appear to be three in this situations. However, the cause for cancellation can be avoided if they shut down 1/3 of the array. But doing so causes them to no longer be "neutral" (break even) in their annual usage; hence they will have to start purcahsing electricity again. (There is nothing in the story that says they were selling EL back to the provider; only that they were not buying electricity).

They basically have two choices:
1) scale back the array and have to buy electricity again;
2) leave the array "as is" and buy insurance that is estimated to be 2x to 3x more because of the existing array
Either way, these two options grossly affect the "payback" schedule initially considered when purchasing the system, and in fact may make it not worth the expense had the truth been known ahead of time

The point of this thread wasn't to talk about the REASONS ... of which many of you got politics involved ...
The point was to discuss the facts about how the ROI (payback schedule) is affected when you cannot use all the power you are capable of producing. They likely purchase an array of this size so they could be essentially a stand-alone system and not ever need to buy electricity. Now, they either have to buy electricity, or pay such a high cost for the current array that they'll never break even; they'd pay more in insurance costs than they would if they just had bought electricity!