The sun can do more for Florida than reliably attract millions of vacationers and winter residents.

Its rays can help power homes and businesses. Its heat can warm water for people to cook and take showers.

Nearly every other state has made a move to take advantage of this by combining a no-excuses attitude with millions of dollars to make solar power a part of the energy mix.

But not Florida.

Home to an internationally known center for solar energy research, the Sunshine State has done little to make the most of the star that provides its nickname.

Critics argue the state actually has too many clouds too often to make solar energy work and that it's still cheaper for utilities to produce - and consumers to pay for - energy that comes from conventional power plants.

Renewable-energy supporters think that's laughable.

"It's so off-base," said Bob Reedy, director of the solar energy division at the Florida Solar Energy Center, based in Cocoa.

Craig Williams, executive director of the Altamonte Springs-based Florida Renewable Energy Association, calls the too-cloudy argument a smokescreen.

"It definitely has the potential to supply our needs many times over once it gets down to the right price," Williams said of solar power. "If we install in large quantities, we can bring back the electric car, take care of our transportation fuel problems, solve the global warming problem, solve the foreign oil problem and take care of coal mining and nuclear waste."

That's a tall order.

But there are signs that Florida might at last be turning its face toward the sun.

The world's No. 1 market for solar power is Germany, which even its tourist Web site acknowledges is cloudy.

In the United States, the state with the second-most aggressive solar policy after sunny California is heavily industrialized New Jersey, home to chemical plants and often-gray days.

"If Germany can be the biggest solar market, then Florida can catch up," said Gwen Rose, solar advocate with the San Fransisco-based nonprofit Vote Solar.

Cost-efficient in long run

Florida does get less direct sun than Arizona and California, home to the nation's largest solar array. But what Florida lacks in light it can make up in heat, researchers say. Solar water heaters would cut 25 percent off someone's monthly electric bill and reduce the amount of energy used in that house 20 percent.

The systems aren't cheap - they cost between $3,000 and $4,000, compared with $300 for a standard water heater - but federal and state governments offer tax breaks, and the energy is free, Williams said. What's more, they last between 25 and 30 years, he said.

"Your energy cost is going to offset the cost," Williams said.

Florida Power & Light Co. is building a 150-kilowatt solar array in Sarasota, and 58 of its 4.4 million residential and business customers use photovoltaic panels, spokesman Mayco Villafaña said.

The utility has installed solar panels on the Miami Science Museum and on elementary, middle and high schools, with more projects on the way.

The science museum uses the electricity to run its animal hospital. Its success will determine how much solar energy it will be able to use for another project downtown, President Gillian Thomas said.

"We think it's fascinating," Thomas said. "It's all part of our new, long-term push for green energy."

Stephen Berg is trying to bring a 175,000-watt photovoltaic system to the garage of the City Center project in downtown West Palm Beach. The solar cell system would shade the cars on top of the garage and is expected to generate about 30 percent of the electricity for the building, said Berg, who runs Go Sun Solutions, a West Palm Beach-based solar energy Web site.

The solar cells would be provided by a Chinese manufacturer Berg declined to name. The city commission will vote July 9 on the deal, which could cost between $400,000 and $700,000.

"This company looks like they are generous enough to break into the solar market," Berg said.

Mandate talk sparks concern

Some of the upcoming projects, as well as the solar array in Sarasota, are tied to FPL's green power program, Sunshine Energy. FPL has pledged to build 150 kilowatts of solar energy for every 10,000 customers that pay an additional $9.75 each month for the program.

"There seems to be a lot of interest out there," said David Bates, who manages the Sunshine Energy program.

But when people start talking about forcing solar to be a significant part of the energy mix, that's when the grumbling starts.

"What you have heard from the environmental movement is that we can get there through renewables or we can get there through offsetting the energy that we are demanding today," Villafaña said. "And what we are saying is that they (renewables) will not get you there."

Utility regulators recently told FPL it couldn't build a 1,980-megawatt coal-fired power plant in Glades County. If FPL wanted to build an equivalent power plant using solar, the photovoltaic panels would have to cover half of Miami and not be hampered by clouds or hurricanes, Villafaña said.

Even the nation's largest solar farm, which covers 2,000 acres in California's Mojave Desert, produces only 300 megawatts of power. It is partly owned by FPL Energy LLC, sister company of solar-shy FPL.

What other states are doing, however, is requiring their utilities to get a portion of their energy from solar.

Nearly half have tacked a small fee onto consumers' monthly utility bills to create what's known as a public benefits fund to promote renewable energy and keep solar panels and other energy-saving products cheap.

Most of the states - 37 - let utilities reimburse consumers for any excess power they generate from solar, according to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Florida's utility regulators are studying the concept, known as net metering.

"Unless Florida can get fair value for the solar it's producing, you're not going to see a market," said Rose, whose Vote Solar is a grass-roots organization that lobbies state governments to create policies for a successful solar market. "Solar has this chicken-or-egg problem: The cost is high because demand is low, and demand is low because the cost is high."

Lawmakers warming up

The Florida Legislature set aside $2.5 million last year to get solar energy off the ground. It was a good start, advocates said.

"We went through that; we just have pocket change left," said Bruce Kershner, executive director of the Longwood-based Florida Solar Energy Industries Association, a 30-year-old nonprofit for solar contractors, retailers and manufacturers.

Kershner has been lobbying the legislature for more money and benefits to jump-start the solar market. His efforts paid off slightly: Lawmakers raised the amount to $3.5 million in their energy bill, which Gov. Charlie Crist recently vetoed.

New Jersey, on the other hand, has raised $275 million through a public benefits fund.

"I think the main reason why Florida really hasn't promoted clean energy in the past is that Florida made a choice to put in low-cost, dirty fossil-fuel power, and everyone is now sort of saying, 'What is going on here?''" said Jigar Shah, chief executive of Beltsville, Md.-based SunEdison, which sells commercial-sized photovoltaic panels and has outfitted 77 percent of retailer Kohl's stores in California with panels.

Florida lawmakers this year threw around the ideas of starting up net metering as well as setting a percentage for renewable fuels that the state has to meet, but by the end of the session the ideas were reduced to items that should be studied and prepared for next year.

"We were only going to implement things that were ready to go," said Rep. Bob Allen, R-Merritt Island, House sponsor of the energy bill. "The philosophy of Florida is to encourage instead of mandate, and not mandate until we have it."

Crist, who has solar panels at the Governor's Mansion, said in vetoing the energy bill two weeks ago that the legislation did not go far enough.

The governor is hosting a two-day summit on climate change in Miami starting July 12 and is likely to unveil his own energy plan before lawmakers and environmental celebrities such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Going solar costs more

Some legislators, however, worry that a heavy-handed policy could backfire.

"I don't think (mandates) will work here," said Rep. Dave Murzin, R-Pensacola.

Murzin, who chairs the House Committee on Utilities and Telecommunications, said he'd rather see money go toward promoting the voluntary green energy programs that Florida's utilities already have.

"It's not the government's role to mandate that we go here, and everybody is going to pay more because a few people are going to rattle an environmental saber," Murzin said.

FPL cheerily says it will go along with whatever state lawmakers and utility regulators want but warns that consumers will pay the price.

"When you implement a technology such as solar, which costs more, it certainly has an upward pressure on rates," said Villafaña, the FPL spokesman.

But ultimately the state may have little choice, said Judi Greenwald of the Arlington, Va.-based Pew Center.

"It depends on what you want to do," said Greenwald, the center's director of innovative solutions. "The states, for the most part, that have mandates have more renewables. It's a demonstrated way to go.

"Maybe (Florida) can come up with some other method, but so far that's been important."