Associated Industries of Florida (AIF) Opposes the “Energy Choice” Amendment

Known as “The Voice of Florida Business” in the Sunshine State, Associated Industries of Florida (“AIF”) has represented the principles of prosperity and free enterprise before the three branches of state government since 1920. A voluntary association of diversified businesses, AIF was created to foster an economic climate in Florida conducive to the growth, development, and welfare of industry and business and the people of the state. 

The Proposed Amendment is clearly and conclusively defective on multiple grounds, any one of which constitutes sufficient grounds for this Court to find the proposal invalid and ineligible to appear on the ballot. 

The Proposed Amendment violates the single subject requirement in several respects. The proposal addresses at least five distinct and logically separable subjects by: 1) establishing a constitutional right for electricity customers to choose their electricity provider from multiple providers in competitive markets; 2) establishing a separate constitutional right for electricity customers to produce electricity themselves or in association with others; 3) denying customer choice by prohibiting Florida’s existing investor-owned utilities from generating electricity or otherwise participating in the new competitive markets; 4) eliminating the Florida Public Service Commission’s electric utility ratemaking duties and this Court’s mandatory jurisdiction over electricity ratemaking; and 5) creating an undisclosed private cause of action for any Florida citizen to obtain a court order compelling the Legislature to enact implementing legislation under vague and non-justiciable standards. The Proposed Amendment bundles and logrolls these disparate subjects into a single proposal in violation of the single-subject requirement. The multiple subjects addressed by the Proposed Amendment also substantially alter the functions of multiple branches of state government in violation of the single-subject requirement. This Court should find the Proposed Amendment invalid as a result of these constitutional deficiencies and issue an advisory opinion denying ballot placement for the proposal. 

Because of these serious legal defects, this Court should issue an advisory opinion concluding that the Proposed Amendment is invalid and cannot be approved for placement on the ballot. 

Read their full legal brief filed with the Florida Supreme Court here.