fbpx

Who Opposes the Energy Deregulation Amendment?

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody

“Additionally, the Attorney General requests the opportunity to present argument in opposition to placement of this proposed amendment on the ballot. The proposed amendment's title and summary are not clear and unambiguous and do not comply with the requirements of section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes..."

Read More

Floridians for Affordable Reliable Energy

“They oppose the initiative because the State's energy policy should not be dramatically and unalterably disrupted to the detriment of the public that depends on affordable, reliable electric energy service."

Read More

The Florida League of Cities

Count the Florida League of Cities among skeptics regarding a proposed energy choice referendum. The League took a position against “deregulating Florida’s energy marketplace.” Organization leaders say the Florida Energy Choice amendment in fact will cripple cities and hurt consumers...

Read More

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy

SACE is not in support of the Florida Energy Choice ballot amendment initiative. Two reasons for our stand: the likelihood that 6,000 MW of planned solar over the next 5 years could be delayed or cancelled, and the appearance that net metering for solar systems could be eliminated.

Read More

Florida Chamber of Commerce

"...the Chamber and the Council have a vested interest in this Initiative because, if adopted, it could cost billions of dollars, substantially increase the cost of energy, make Florida less competitive, and lower tax revenues for local governments. Accordingly, they submit this brief opposing the Initiative."

Read more

Florida Economic Development Council

"...the Chamber and the Council have a vested interest in this Initiative because, if adopted, it could cost billions of dollars, substantially increase the cost of energy, make Florida less competitive, and lower tax revenues for local governments. Accordingly, they submit this brief opposing the Initiative."

Read More

Jacksonville Urban League

"Florida’s Urban Leagues work to empower Florida families to achieve social and economic success,” said Jacksonville Urban League President and CEO, Richard Danford. “The 'Energy Choice' ballot initiative will tear down the progress we’ve made over the last 70 years and leave vulnerable Floridians exposed to bad consumer choices. The ballot measure does nothing more than saddle our members with higher costs, increased fraud and a less reliable energy system. This would be especially harmful to the citizens of our state who can least afford it.”

Read More

Central Florida Urban League

“Our mission is to empower Central Floridians with the necessary tools to achieve social and economic success. To us, it is very clear that the 'Energy Choice' ballot measure will negatively impact our constituency. For that reason, we strongly oppose the ballot measure," shared Central Florida Urban League President and CEO Glenton Glitzean.

Read More

Urban League of Palm Beach County

“We firmly believe that this ballot initiative is not 'choice,' but rather will damage consumers and harm our members and their communities,” said Patrick Franklin, President and CEO, Palm Beach County Urban League. “As a leading provider of family services to our community, this ballot initiative will strain our community members’ ability to move into the economic mainstream.”

Read More

Florida Association of Counties

“The proposed amendment will negatively affect the interests of counties throughout Florida. It will drastically reduce revenues, diminish home rule power, and impair existing contracts.”

Read More

Florida Sheriffs Association

“The constitutional proposal before the Court would completely dismantle Florida’s current regulated energy market and fundamentally alter the governmental framework and economic model under which Florida has operated for decades.”

Read More

Florida Police Benevolent Association

“The proposed amendment’s reduction to local government revenues will negatively impact numerous local and state law enforcement agencies and their ability to protect the citizens of Florida.”

Read More

Audubon Florida

“Audubon Florida and TNC-Florida contend that the Right to Energy Market amendment fails to meet the requirements for placement on a ballot and therefore should not be submitted to the electorate.”

Read More

The Nature Conservancy, Florida Program

“Audubon Florida and TNC-Florida contend that the Right to Energy Market amendment fails to meet the requirements for placement on a ballot and therefore should not be submitted to the electorate.”

Read More

Florida House of Representatives

“The House submits this brief in opposition to the proposed initiative because of the deleterious effect that it, like numerous other policy-centric initiative proposals, would have on both the scope of the Legislature’s power and the nature of the Constitution as a charter document.”

Read More

The Florida Senate

“The Energy Choice Initiative fails both historic tests established by the Court to determine whether an initiative complies with the single-subject rule. The Energy Choice Initiative also fails to identify what parts of the Constitution it would affect.”

Read More

Florida Electric Cooperatives Association

“The proposal before this Court would fundamentally alter the way cooperatives obtain electricity for, and provide electric service to, their consumer-members. It also would dismantle the governmental framework under which electric cooperatives and other retail electric utilities have been regulated for decades. FECA therefore presents this brief in opposition to the placement of the Initiative on the ballot.”

Read More

The Florida Public Service Commission

“The Court should prevent the proposed amendment from being placed on the ballot for two reasons: the ballot title and summary do not accurately convey the true effects of the amendment, and the amendment addresses several disparate subjects.”

Read More

Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA)

“...it is hard to imagine any prior proposed initiative petition that would have as many precipitous and cataclysmic changes as the current Amendment. [Further,] the Ballot Title and Ballot Summary resort to political rhetoric, sloganeering, and advocacy language designed to mislead rather than educate and inform.”

Read More

The Florida Municipal Power Agency

“Particularly misleading is the enticement of voters who rely on public power utilities for their electric power, as it states that 'municipally-owned electric utilities may freely participate in the competitive wholesale electricity market and may choose, at their discretion, to participate in the competitive retail electricity market.'”

Read More

Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC)

“Not only does the Initiative impermissibly roll together a whole host of separate subjects (consumer choice for retail electric service, ownership of transmission and generation assets, regulation of electric utilities at wholesale (federal) and retail (state) levels, and competitive markets, to name a few), it is also fundamentally misleading.”

Read More

The Florida Municipal Electric Association

“The Initiative’s title and ballot summary also affirmatively misleads voters and omits necessary and material facts in violation of section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes. The ballot summary sets up false and misleading expectations that Florida’s public power utilities will be unaffected by the Initiative unless they choose to 'opt into competitive markets.'”

Read More

Florida Realtors

“The Proposed Amendment is a wolf that comes as a sheep, as the Proposed Amendment’s title and ballot summary will mislead voters regarding the Proposed Amendment and its effects.”

Read More

Associated Industries of Florida

“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."

Read More

Florida Health Care Association

“The ballot statement affirmatively misinforms voters by stating that the proposal grants customers of investor-owned utilities the right to choose their electricity provider when the Proposed Amendment actually denies customers a choice of electric utility providers.”

Read More

Florida Hospital Association

“The ballot statement advises voters that the proposal grants a constitutional right to 'sell electricity,' but the Proposed Amendment grants no such affirmative constitutional right. Instead, the Proposed Amendment merely states that its terms should not be construed to limit the right to sell electricity."

Read More

Energy Fairness

“Energy Fairness opposes placement of the initiative on the ballot because it is clearly and conclusively defective in that it fails to satisfy both the single-subject requirement of Article XI, section 3, and the clarity requirement of Section 101.161(1).”

Read More

American Senior Alliance

“The proposed amendment is clearly and conclusively defective. The Court must strike the Investor-Owned Utilities Amendment from the ballot because it violates the single-subject requirement and because its ballot title and summary violate the requirements of clear and accurate disclosure...and the ballot summary is demonstrably false."

Read More

City of Fort Lauderdale

“The Proposed Amendment may create significant financial harm to the Municipal Governments. The Proposed Amendment will ban the franchise agreements the Municipal Governments have long given the IOUs in exchange for payment of franchise fees.”

Read More

City of Hollywood

“The Proposed Amendment includes at least four distinct issues, forcing each voter to choose between voting for one issue he or she supports, but also one or more issues he or she opposes, or else voting against the issue he or she supports."

Read More

City of Pompano Beach

“The Proposed Amendment also substantially affects multiple branches of government. It creates new causes of action that will require the judiciary to essentially make legislative decisions without a manageable standard needed to avoid judicial intrusion into the legislative power.”

Read More

Town of Davie

“In sum, if the Proposed Amendment becomes law, the Municipal Governments, as well as potentially hundreds of other local governments, will likely lose millions of dollars in revenue every year."

Read More

City of Belle Glade

“The Proposed Amendment does not include a provision for a provider of last resort, potentially leaving our communities, particularly those that are more remote or those with the lowest incomes, without any source of power.”

Read More

Village of Indiantown

“...the Proposed Amendment would cause substantial reduction in the Small Local Governments’ revenues, because it would likely result in lower property taxes and municipal utility taxes, and would probably abolish franchise fees."

Read More

City of Chipley

“...the Proposed Amendment creates a constitutional right for any person to generate power. This appears to eliminate State and local police powers to regulate for the safety and public welfare of each community.”

Read More

City of Vernon

“The Proposed Amendment will have a disproportionate negative impact on small and rural communities by removing existing requirements that the IOUs provide power to all consumers in their territories without discrimination as to rates."

Read More

Lake Okeechobee Regional Economic Alliance of Palm Beach County

“The Proposed Amendment will eliminate the existing requirements that consumers must be treated fairly and charged only a fair and reasonable rate for power. Assuming the Proposed Amendment results in lower prices through competition, these lower prices will likely be unevenly distributed...assuming any of the deregulated entities even attempt to sell power to these communities.”

Read More

Florida Electrical Workers Association

“...the FEWA agreed to initiate a vigorous campaign to inform the public of the many dangers of the 'Energy Choice' proposal. ”

Read More

Florida Alliance for Retired Americans, Inc.

FLARA President Bill Sauers announced today "That among other actions taken at the annual convention of Florida Alliance for Retired Americans held on June 5, 2019, a resolution was unanimously adopted to oppose and defeat the Florida constitutional amendment ballot initiative know as 'Energy Choice.'"

Read More

Darren Soto
Member of Congress

Bipartisan members of Congress Oppose the so-called “Energy Choice” Amendment.

Read Their Letter

Gus M. Bilirakis
Member of Congress

Bipartisan members of Congress Oppose the so-called “Energy Choice” Amendment.

Read Their Letter

Vern Buchanan
Member of Congress

Bipartisan members of Congress Oppose the so-called “Energy Choice” Amendment.

Read Their Letter

Charlie Crist
Member of Congress

Bipartisan members of Congress Oppose the so-called “Energy Choice” Amendment.

Read Their Letter

Val B. Demings
Member of Congress

Bipartisan members of Congress Oppose the so-called “Energy Choice” Amendment.

Read Their Letter

Ted E. Deutch
Member of Congress

Bipartisan members of Congress Oppose the so-called “Energy Choice” Amendment.

Read Their Letter

Mario Diaz-Balart
Member of Congress

Bipartisan members of Congress Oppose the so-called “Energy Choice” Amendment.

Read Their Letter

Neal P. Dunn, M.D.
Member of Congress

Bipartisan members of Congress Oppose the so-called “Energy Choice” Amendment.

Read Their Letter

Lois Frankel
Member of Congress

Bipartisan members of Congress Oppose the so-called “Energy Choice” Amendment.

Read Their Letter

Alcee L. Hastings
Member of Congress

Bipartisan members of Congress Oppose the so-called “Energy Choice” Amendment.

Read Their Letter

Al Lawson, Jr.
Member of Congress

Bipartisan members of Congress Oppose the so-called “Energy Choice” Amendment.

Read Their Letter

Brian J. Mast
Member of Congress

Bipartisan members of Congress Oppose the so-called “Energy Choice” Amendment.

Read Their Letter

Debbie Mucarsel-Powell
Member of Congress

Bipartisan members of Congress Oppose the so-called “Energy Choice” Amendment.

Read Their Letter

Stephanie Murphy
Member of Congress

Bipartisan members of Congress Oppose the so-called “Energy Choice” Amendment.

Read Their Letter

Francis Rooney
Member of Congress

Bipartisan members of Congress Oppose the so-called “Energy Choice” Amendment.

Read Their Letter

John H. Rutherford
Member of Congress

Bipartisan members of Congress Oppose the so-called “Energy Choice” Amendment.

Read Their Letter

Donna E. Shalala
Member of Congress

Bipartisan members of Congress Oppose the so-called “Energy Choice” Amendment.

Read Their Letter

W. Gregory Steube
Member of Congress

Bipartisan members of Congress Oppose the so-called “Energy Choice” Amendment.

Read Their Letter

Michael Waltz
Member of Congress

Bipartisan members of Congress Oppose the so-called “Energy Choice” Amendment.

Read Their Letter

Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Member of Congress

Bipartisan members of Congress Oppose the so-called “Energy Choice” Amendment.

Read Their Letter

Daniel Webster
Member of Congress

Bipartisan members of Congress Oppose the so-called “Energy Choice” Amendment.

Read Their Letter

Frederica S. Wilson
Member of Congress

Bipartisan members of Congress Oppose the so-called “Energy Choice” Amendment.

Read Their Letter

Ted S. Yoho
Member of Congress

Bipartisan members of Congress Oppose the so-called “Energy Choice” Amendment.

Read Their Letter

Bill Posey
Member of Congress

Bipartisan members of Congress Oppose the so-called “Energy Choice” Amendment.

Read Their Letter