Florida Supreme Court halts ‘energy choice’ ballot initiative
The movement to bring “energy choice” to Florida was significantly stalled on Thursday when the Florida Supreme Court decided unanimously to remove the grassroots initiative from the 2020 ballot.
In the released advisory opinion, the court determined the proposal, titled “Right to Competitive Energy Market for Customers of Investor-Owned Utilities; Allowing Energy Choice,” failed to meet a clear language standard for ballot initiatives and misleads voters.
Although the initiative outlined several rights, such as the “right to purchase electricity from a provider of one’s choice, the right to purchase electricity in competitive wholesale and retail markets, the right to generate electricity oneself or in combination with others,” the court stated that the initiative misinforms voters that they have a constitutional right to also sell electricity. This language appears on the ballot summary but not on the amendment.
For opponents of the ballot initiative, which included 25 parties that filed briefs opposing the initiative, they say it’s a victory for market competitiveness.
“We cannot secure Florida’s future with regulatory policies that will make our state less competitive and electricity more expensive,” said Mark Wilson, president and CEO of the Florida Chamber of Commerce. “The Florida Supreme Court made the right decision in finding the proposed electricity deregulation initiative misleading. The Florida Chamber will continue to protect our constitution, and we’ll remain vigilant should this issue try to reappear.”
The Chamber conducted a financial impact study and found that the initiative’s proposed changes to Florida’s electricity market would cost state and local government more than $1.2 billion per year in increased costs and reduced revenues. The amendment called for a complete restructuring of the Florida power grid and electricity market.
Ana Gibbs, spokesperson for Duke Energy, said company officials are “pleased with the Florida Supreme Court’s decision” and that “state regulation and collaborative state energy policy have positioned Florida as a leader in affordable, reliable, and clean energy. Dismantling the energy sector could potentially cost ratepayers billions. Deregulation would also impact state and local governments, costing them billions in tax revenue paid for by utilities for vital services.”
Cherie Jacobs, spokesperson for TECO Energy, echoed these sentiments.
Floridians are well-served by the current structure of the electricity market, she said, as TECO’s rates are 20 percent below the national average and 37 percent below deregulated states.
Alex Patton, chair of Citizens for Choice, the organization behind the initiative, told the Tallahassee Democrat that this was an “extreme disappointment that obviously our committee disagrees with” but that “we respect the rule of law.”
