Mitch Perry
Floridians for Solar Choice said Tuesday it has filed its answer brief defending its petition language as it tries to get a ballot initiative ready for next year’s elections.
Its initiative would allow Florida residents to purchase solar-generated electricity for their home or business from an entity other than a public utility. The brief filed with the Florida Supreme Court contends the group’s petition language meets the court’s requirement to address a single subject, and that the ballot title and summary provide sufficient and clear information for voters.
The group also announced that it has more than 94,000 signatures verified in their quest to get more than 683,149 by Feb. 1, the deadline to put the proposed constitutional amendment on the November 2016 ballot.
In their statement, members of the coalition also blasted critics of the proposal.
“The League is disappointed to see baseless attacks against a proposal that could bring real benefits to the Sunshine State,” said Pamela Goodman, president of League of Women Voters of Florida. “Solar choice could provide commercial and residential customers the freedom of who they buy their solar power from, which would be good for everyone in Florida. Just because monopoly utilities are fearful of customers generating their own power, it does not warrant attacking basic freedoms in this country.”
In a blog post on the website for the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, alliance director Susan Glickman took a shot at Attorney General Pam Bondi, who filed a brief before the state Supreme Court this month arguing that the proposal wasn’t ready to go on the 2016 ballot because it lacked consumer protections.
“Now all of a sudden, she claims she has new-found concern for consumer protection when at every opportunity she has sided with powerful, entrenched monopoly utilities over Florida’s citizens. She touts conservative credentials but works to protect government sponsored monopolies,” Glickman writes.
Bondi’s brief was filed at the same time as one from the state’s leading energy providers. Florida Power & Light, Duke Energy, TECO and Gulf Power, all stated that the ballot language composed by Floridians for Solar Choice would be “misleading” to voters.
“The proposed amendment fails in several respects to meet basic standards that are intended to protect voters from being misled or confused,” FPL said in a prepared statement. “Indeed, the amendment’s language is largely unclear, but one thing is certain: It would amount to an unprecedented constitutional ban on consumer protection.”
The energy companies also say that Floridians for Solar Choice have failed to disclose the impact on local-government revenue sources, and that the wording would limit regulations requiring consumer-safety protections.
Tory Perfetti, chairman of Floridians for Solar Choice, disagrees.
“In the state of Florida, It is clear that there are still opponents to the free market and competition when it comes to energy. These organizations and individuals are collectively spreading false and highly speculative arguments in order to create fear and doubt in Floridians minds about the positive role that solar can play in diversifying the power mix, growing our economy and providing clean energy,” he said in a prepared statement. “We eagerly await oral arguments before the court set for September 1st and we look forward to Supreme Court approval of this amendment for the 2016 ballot.”
The filing of briefs with the Supreme Court comes a day before the state of Georgia’s new solar bill goes into effect, making the Sunshine State one of only four states in the country where law denies residents and businesses the opportunity to buy solar power electricity directly from someone other than a monopoly electric utility or government-owned electric utility.
