Title: Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re: Limits or Prevents Barriers to Local Solar Electricity Supply & Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re: Limits or Prevents Barriers to Local Solar Electricity Supply (FIS)

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC15-780 
____________ 
 
 
ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE: LIMITS OR 
PREVENTS BARRIERS TO LOCAL SOLAR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY. 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC15-890 
____________ 
 
 
ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE: LIMITS OR 
PREVENTS BARRIERS TO LOCAL SOLAR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY 
(FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT). 
 
[October 22, 2015] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
The Attorney General of Florida has petitioned this Court for an advisory 
opinion as to the validity of a citizen initiative amendment to the Florida 
Constitution, titled “Limits or Prevents Barriers to Local Solar Electricity Supply,” 
and the corresponding Financial Impact Statement submitted by the Financial 
Impact Estimating Conference.  The constitutional amendment is being proposed 
by Floridians for Solar Choice, Inc. (the “Sponsor”), pursuant to article XI, section 
 
- 2 - 
3, of the Florida Constitution.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. IV, § 10, art. V, 
§ 3(b)(10), Fla. Const. 
 
This Court’s review of the amendment is limited to two issues.  First, we 
must determine if the proposed amendment meets the requirements of article XI, 
section 3, Florida Constitution, which provides that “any such revision or 
amendment, except for those limiting the power of government to raise revenue, 
shall embrace but one subject and matter directly connected therewith.”  Second, 
we must determine if the ballot title and summary satisfy the requirements of 
section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (2014).  That statute provides that when a 
constitutional amendment is submitted to the vote of the people, “a ballot summary 
of such amendment . . .  shall be printed in clear and unambiguous language on the 
ballot.”  § 101.161(1), Fla. Stat.  Section 101.161(1) also mandates that the ballot 
summary of the amendment “shall be an explanatory statement, not exceeding 75 
words in length, of the chief purpose of the measure.”  § 101.161(1), Fla. Stat.  The 
ballot shall also include a separate Financial Impact Statement concerning the 
measure prepared by the Financial Impact Estimating Conference according to the 
requirements of section 100.371(5), Florida Statutes (2014).  See § 101.161(1), Fla. 
Stat.; § 100.371(5), Fla. Stat.  
 
As we explain, we conclude that that proposed amendment embraces a 
single subject and matter directly connected therewith, and that the ballot summary 
 
- 3 - 
explaining the chief purpose of the measure is not clearly and conclusively 
defective.  We also conclude that the accompanying Financial Impact Statement 
complies with section 100.371(5), Florida Statutes.  Accordingly, we approve the 
proposed amendment and Financial Impact Statement for placement on the ballot 
so long as the remaining requirements of article XI, section 3, of the Florida 
Constitution, are met.1  
I.  BACKGROUND 
On April 24, 2015, the Attorney General petitioned this Court for an 
opinion as to the validity of an initiative petition sponsored by Floridians for 
Solar Choice, Inc., pursuant to article XI, section 3, of the Florida 
Constitution.  The sponsor submitted a brief supporting the validity of the 
initiative petition.  The Attorney General submitted a brief in opposition, as 
did the Florida Chapter of the National Congress of Black Women, Inc.; the 
Orlando Utilities Commission; the National Black Chamber of Commerce; 
                                          
 
 
1.  Article XI, section 3, Florida Constitution, also requires that the sponsor 
file “with the custodian of state records a petition containing a copy of the 
proposed revision or amendment, signed by a number of electors in each of one 
half of the congressional districts of the state, and of the state as a whole, equal to 
eight percent of the votes cast in each of such districts respectively and in the state 
as a whole in the last preceding election in which presidential electors were 
chosen.” 
 
 
- 4 - 
the Florida State Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; the Florida Chamber of 
Commerce; the Florida Electric Cooperatives Association, Inc.; Florida 
Power & Light Company, Duke Energy Florida, Gulf Power Company, and 
Tampa Electric Company; the City of Coral Gables; the Florida Council for 
Safe Communities; and the Florida League of Cities, Inc., and Florida 
Municipal Electric Association, Inc. 
The amendment proposed by Floridians for Solar Choice, Inc., would add 
the following new section 29 to article X of the Florida Constitution: 
ARTICLE X, SECTION 29.  Purchase and sale of solar electricity.— 
(a)  PURPOSE AND INTENT.  It shall be the policy of the state to 
encourage and promote local small-scale solar-generated electricity 
production and to enhance the availability of solar power to 
customers.  This section is intended to accomplish this purpose by 
limiting and preventing regulatory and economic barriers that 
discourage the supply of electricity generated from solar energy 
sources to customers who consume the electricity at the same or a 
contiguous property as the site of the solar electricity production.  
Regulatory and economic barriers include rate, service and territory 
regulations imposed by state or local government on those supplying 
such local solar electricity, and imposition by electric utilities of 
special rates, fees, charges, tariffs, or terms and conditions of service 
on their customers consuming local solar electricity supplied by a 
third party that are not imposed on their other customers of the same 
type or class who do not consume local solar electricity. 
(b)  PURCHASE AND SALE OF LOCAL SMALL-SCALE SOLAR 
ELECTRICITY. 
(1)  A local solar electricity supplier, as defined in this section, shall 
not be subject to state or local government regulation with respect to 
rates, service, or territory, or be subject to any assignment, 
reservation, or division of service territory between or among electric 
utilities.   
 
- 5 - 
(2)  No electric utility shall impair any customer’s purchase or 
consumption of solar electricity from a local solar electricity supplier 
through any special rate, charge, tariff, classification, term or 
condition of service, or utility rule or regulation, that is not also 
imposed on other customers of the same type or class that do not 
consume electricity from a local solar electricity supplier.   
(3)  An electric utility shall not be relieved of its obligation under law 
to furnish service to any customer within its service territory on the 
basis that such customer also purchases electricity from a local solar 
electricity supplier.   
(4)  Notwithstanding paragraph (1), nothing in this section shall 
prohibit reasonable health, safety and welfare regulations, including, 
but not limited to, building codes, electrical codes, safety codes and 
pollution control regulations, which do not prohibit or have the effect 
of prohibiting the supply of solar-generated electricity by a local solar 
electricity supplier as defined in this section.  
(c)  DEFINITIONS.  For the purposes of this section: 
(1)  “local solar electricity supplier” means any person who supplies 
electricity generated from a solar electricity generating facility with a 
maximum rated capacity of no more than 2 megawatts, that converts 
energy from the sun into thermal or electrical energy, to any other 
person located on the same property, or on separately owned but 
contiguous property, where the solar energy generating facility is 
located.   
(2)  “person” means any individual, firm, association, joint venture, 
partnership, estate, trust, business trust, syndicate, fiduciary, 
corporation, government entity, and any other group or combination. 
(3)  “electric utility” means every person, corporation, partnership, 
association, governmental entity, and their lessees, trustees, or 
receivers, other than a local solar electricity supplier, supplying 
electricity to ultimate consumers of electricity within this state. 
(4)  “local government” means any county, municipality, special 
district, authority, or any other subdivision of the state. 
(d)  ENFORCEMENT AND EFFECTIVE DATE.  This amendment 
shall be effective on January 3, 2017.   
 
The ballot title for the proposed amendment, which is limited by law to 
fifteen words, is stated as “Limits or Prevents Barriers to Local Solar Electricity 
 
- 6 - 
Supply.”  The ballot summary, which is limited by law to seventy-five words, 
states: 
Limits or prevents government and electric utility imposed barriers to 
supplying local solar electricity.  Local solar electricity supply is the 
non-utility supply of solar generated electricity from a facility rated up 
to 2 megawatts to customers at the same or contiguous property as the 
facility.  Barriers include government regulation of local solar 
electricity suppliers’ rates, service and territory, and unfavorable 
electric utility rates, charges, or terms of service imposed on local 
solar electricity customers.   
 
 
On May 7, 2015, the Financial Impact Estimating Conference forwarded to 
the Attorney General the following financial impact statement regarding the 
initiative petition: 
Based on current laws and administration, the amendment will result 
in decreased state and local government revenues overall.  The timing 
and magnitude of these decreases cannot be determined because they 
are dependent on various technological and economic factors that 
cannot be predicted with certainty.  State and local governments will 
incur additional costs, which will likely be minimal and partially 
offset by fees.   
 
The sponsor submitted a brief supporting the validity of the financial impact 
statement and its compliance with section 100.371(5), Florida Statutes.  Florida 
Power & Light Company, jointly with Duke Energy Florida, Gulf Power 
Company, and Tampa Electric Company, also submitted a brief agreeing that the 
financial impact statement complied with section 100.371(5), Florida Statutes.  We 
begin by setting forth our standard of review for this citizen initiative proposal.  
 
- 7 - 
II.  STANDARD OF REVIEW 
This Court applies a deferential standard of review to the validity of a citizen 
initiative petition.  In re Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. re Use of Marijuana for 
Certain Med. Conditions, 132 So. 3d 786, 794 (Fla. 2014).  We are reluctant to 
interfere with Florida citizens’ right to formulate “their own organic law” by self-
determination.  Id. (quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Right to Treatment & 
Rehab. for Non-Violent Drug Offenses, 818 So. 2d 491, 494 (Fla. 2002)).  Thus, 
we abide by the principle that “[s]overeignty resides in the people and the electors 
have a right to approve or reject a proposed amendment to the organic law of this 
State, limited only by those instances where there is an entire failure to comply 
with a plain and essential requirement.”  Id. (quoting Pope v. Gray, 104 So. 2d 841, 
842 (Fla. 1958)).  
As noted earlier, in determining the validity of an amendment to the 
constitution arising from a citizen’s initiative, this Court examines two 
requirements: (1) the ballot title and summary must satisfy the requirements of 
section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes; and (2) the proposed amendment must satisfy 
the single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3, of the Florida Constitution.  
Use of Marijuana for Certain Med. Conditions, 132 So. 3d at 795.  As this Court 
has stated: 
In addressing these two issues, our inquiry is governed by 
several general principles.  First, we do not consider or address the 
 
- 8 - 
merits or wisdom of the proposed amendment.  Second, “[t]he Court 
must act with extreme care, caution, and restraint before it removes a 
constitutional amendment from the vote of the people.”  Specifically, 
where citizen initiatives are concerned, “[the] Court has no authority 
to inject itself in the process, unless the laws governing the process 
have been ‘clearly and conclusively’ violated.”  Hence, our review is 
narrow and limited to the two questions set out above. 
 
In re Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. re Fairness Initiative Requiring Legislative 
Determination that Sales Tax Exemptions & Exclusions Serve a Pub. Purpose, 880 
So. 2d 630, 633 (Fla. 2004) (citations omitted).  Thus, without considering or 
addressing the merits or wisdom of the proposed amendment, we turn first to 
determine if the amendment meets the single-subject requirement of article XI, 
section 3, of the Florida Constitution.   
III.  SINGLE-SUBJECT REQUIREMENT 
 
The single-subject requirement is at its base a “rule of restraint” designed to 
protect Florida’s organic law from “precipitous and cataclysmic change.”  In re 
Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen.—Save Our Everglades, 636 So. 2d 1336, 1339 (Fla. 
1994).  The single-subject requirement protects against two things.  First, it 
prevents “logrolling,” in which several separate issues are combined in a single 
initiative to attempt to secure approval of not only a popular issue but also “an 
otherwise unpopular issue” that is included in the same proposal.  See Use of 
Marijuana for Certain Med. Conditions, 132 So. 3d at 795 (quoting Save Our 
Everglades, 636 So. 2d at 1339).  Of the several different ways in which the 
 
- 9 - 
Florida Constitution provides for amendment, “[o]nly the initiative process in 
section 3 contains the restrictive language that ‘any such revision or amendment 
shall embrace but one subject and matter directly connected therewith.’ ”  Save 
Our Everglades, 636 So. 2d at 1339 (quoting Fine v. Firestone, 448 So. 2d 984, 
988 (Fla. 1984)).  The inclusion of the single-subject requirement recognizes that 
only the citizen’s initiative process—as contrasted with the legislative joint 
resolution process, the constitutional revision commission process, or the 
constitutional convention process—lacks the “filtering” process for carefully 
considered drafting and the public hearing process contained in those other 
methods of amendment or revision.  Save Our Everglades, 636 So. 2d at 1339 
(quoting Fine, 448 So. 2d at 988).  For these reasons, this Court is called upon to 
provide careful scrutiny of the initiative proposal to ensure that it meets the 
constitutional single-subject requirement.   
 
The opponents of the initiative in this case contend, first, that the proposed 
amendment violates the single-subject requirement by impermissibly logrolling 
several separate subjects, some of which certain voters may view favorably and 
others of which those same voters may view unfavorably, thus forcing the voters to 
choose whether to accept an unfavorable provision in order to secure another 
desired one.  To comply with the single-subject requirement, and to avoid this 
impermissible logrolling, a citizen initiative amendment “must manifest ‘a logical 
 
- 10 - 
and natural oneness of purpose.’ ”  Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Fla. Marriage 
Prot. Amend., 926 So. 2d 1229, 1233 (Fla. 2006).  We have explained: 
In addressing the issue of logrolling, this Court determines whether 
the amendment manifests a “logical and natural oneness of purpose.”  
Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Fla.’s Amendment to Reduce Class 
Size, 816 So. 2d 580, 582 (Fla. 2002) (quoting Fine v. Firestone, 448 
So. 2d 984, 990 (Fla. 1984)).  A proposed amendment meets this test 
when it “may be logically viewed as having a natural relation and 
connection as component parts or aspects of a single dominant plan or 
scheme.  Unity of object and plan is the universal test.”  Fine, 448 So. 
2d at 990 (quoting City of Coral Gables v. Gray, 154 Fla. 881, 19 So. 
2d 318, 320 (1944)). 
 
Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re: Indep. Nonpartisan Comm’n to Apportion 
Legislative & Cong. Dists. Which Replaces Apportionment by Legislature, 926 So. 
2d 1218, 1225 (Fla. 2006).   
Although the proposed amendment contains a number of provisions—some 
dealing with economic barriers to supply of solar electricity and others dealing 
with government regulation with respect to rates, service, or territory—the logical 
and natural oneness of purpose of the amendment remains the same.  The various 
provisions are all directly connected to the amendment’s purpose—and its 
dominant plan or scheme—and, thus, the proposed amendment does not engage in 
impermissible logrolling.  The proposed amendment states in its “PURPOSE AND 
INTENT” section that regulatory and economic barriers to be prohibited include: 
rate, service and territory regulations imposed by state or local 
government on those supplying such local solar electricity, and 
imposition by electric utilities of special rates, fees, charges, tariffs, or 
 
- 11 - 
terms and conditions of service on their customers consuming local 
solar electricity supplied by a third party that are not imposed on their 
other customers of the same type or class who do not consume local 
solar electricity. 
 
The remainder of the proposed amendment spells out in greater detail what barriers 
and regulations will be prohibited and what barriers will be limited by the 
amendment in carrying out the stated purpose and intent.  This amendment 
accomplishes a “oneness of purpose,” while also providing that the exemptions 
from regulation do not include reasonable health, safety, and welfare regulations 
that do not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the supply of solar-generated 
electricity as allowed by the amendment. 
We conclude that the proposed amendment has a “logical and natural 
oneness of purpose” to remove legal and regulatory barriers to local solar 
electricity suppliers who seek to supply and sell up to 2 megawatts of solar 
generated electricity to purchasers on the same or contiguous property to the 
supplier.  This is the dominant plan or scheme that the various provisions of the 
amendment accomplish by exempting such a local solar electricity supplier from 
state or local government regulation with respect to rates, service, or territory, and 
by removing or limiting other regulatory barriers to provision of the solar 
generated electricity provided for in the proposal.  The provisions “encompass[] a 
single plan and merely enumerate[] various elements necessary to accomplish the 
plan.”  Use of Marijuana for Certain Med. Conditions, 132 So. 3d at 796 (quoting 
 
- 12 - 
Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Standards for Establishing Legislative Dist. 
Boundaries, 2 So. 3d 175, 182 (Fla. 2009)). 
We recognize that “enfolding disparate subjects within the cloak of a broad 
generality does not satisfy the single-subject requirement.”  Advisory Op. to Att’y 
Gen.—Restricts Laws Related to Discrimination, 632 So. 2d 1018, 1020 (Fla. 
1994) (quoting Evans v. Firestone, 457 So. 2d 1351, 1353 (Fla. 1984)).  In Evans, 
we struck an initiative from the ballot that proposed to establish citizens’ rights in 
civil actions for several reasons, including that one of the provisions was not 
“directly connected” to the other two provisions.  457 So. 2d at 1354.  However, 
we find that the various provisions of the proposed amendment in this case are not 
“disparate subjects” and instead are directly connected to the purpose of the 
amendment and to each other.   
The second question for our determination is whether the proposal violates 
the single-subject requirement by substantially altering or performing the functions 
of multiple branches of state government.  See Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Fla. 
Transp. Initiative for Statewide High Speed Monorail, Fixed Guideway or 
Magnetic Levitation Sys., 769 So. 2d 367, 369 (Fla. 2000).  We conclude that the 
amendment in this case does not run afoul of this requirement.  We have explained 
that “[a]lthough a proposal may affect several branches of government and still 
pass muster, no single proposal can substantially alter or perform the functions of 
 
- 13 - 
multiple branches.”  Save Our Everglades, 636 So. 2d at 1340 (footnote omitted).  
See also Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research, 
959 So. 2d 195, 198 (Fla. 2007).  As we reiterated in Save Our Everglades, “We 
have found proposed amendments to meet the single-subject requirement even 
though they affected multiple branches of government.”  636 So. 2d at 1340 n.1 
(emphasis added) (quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen.—Limited Political Terms 
in Certain Elective Offices, 592 So. 2d 225, 227 (Fla. 1991)).   
The opponents contend that the proposal is invalid because it would impact 
both state and local governments by removing some regulatory authority from 
both, by establishing state policy relating to solar electricity supply, and by 
limiting the Legislature’s authority.  However, the opponents do not indicate how 
this amendment will interfere with or take over the state’s energy policy.  
Moreover, a proposed amendment will not fail simply because it affects several 
branches of government; rather, it will fail if the proposal “substantially alters or 
performs the functions of multiple branches” of government.  Use of Marijuana for 
Certain Med. Conditions, 132 So. 3d at 795.  The amendment, to fail this test, must 
alter or perform the functions of multiple branches of government and thereby 
cause “precipitous” or “cataclysmic” changes to the government structure.  See 
Live Human Embryo, 959 So. 2d at 213 (citing Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re 
Additional Homestead Tax Exemption, 880 So. 2d 646, 650 (Fla. 2000)). 
 
- 14 - 
 
Although we recognize that the proposed amendment would limit the 
authority of the Legislature and other governmental entities to regulate in certain 
areas relating to the non-utility solar providers created under the amendment, we 
conclude that the amendment does not substantially alter or perform the functions 
of multiple branches of government producing “precipitous” or “cataclysmic” 
changes.  For the reasons set forth above, we hold that the proposed citizen 
initiative amendment does not violate the single-subject requirement of article XI, 
section 3, of the Florida Constitution.  We turn next to the question of whether the 
ballot title and summary comply with the requirements of section 101.161, Florida 
Statutes. 
IV.  BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY 
 
Section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part that the 
substance of the amendment shall be “printed in clear and unambiguous language 
on the ballot” and that the “summary of the amendment . . . shall be an explanatory 
statement, not exceeding 75 words in length, of the chief purpose of the measure.”  
This “clear and unambiguous” requirement “ensures that a voter has notice of the 
subject matter and issues addressed by the proposed amendment.”  Live Human 
Embryo, 959 So. 2d at 213.  We must also consider the question of whether the 
language of the ballot title and summary will affirmatively be misleading.  Use of 
Marijuana for Certain Med. Conditions, 132 So. 3d at 797.  Thus, the ballot 
 
- 15 - 
summary must set forth the “chief purpose of the amendment” and may not 
mislead the voter.  See Live Human Embryo, 959 So. 2d at 213-14.   
The ballot title and summary must each “stand on its own merits and not be 
disguised as something else.”  Askew v. Firestone, 421 So. 2d 151, 156 (Fla. 
1982).  The ballot title and summary may not “ ‘fly under false colors’ or ‘hide the 
ball’ with regard to the true effect of an amendment.”  Fla. Dep’t of State v. 
Slough, 992 So. 2d 142, 147 (Fla. 2008) (quoting Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 
7, 16 (Fla. 2000)).  The purpose of this requirement is “to assure that the electorate 
is advised of the true meaning, and ramifications, of an amendment.”  Askew, 421 
So. 2d at 156.  However, there is no requirement that the ballot summary explain 
its complete terms “at great and undue length.”  Right to Treatment & Rehab. for 
Non-Violent Drug Offenses, 818 So. 2d at 498 (quoting Metro. Dade Cty. v. 
Shiver, 365 So. 2d 210, 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)).  We have noted that such a 
requirement would actually hamper rather than aid the intelligent exercise of the 
voting privilege.  Id.   
 
After careful scrutiny of the text of the ballot title and summary, and the text 
of the amendment, and after consideration of all the arguments of counsel, we 
conclude that the ballot title and summary in this case do not run afoul of these 
requirements.  Without considering the merits of the measure, we find that the title 
and summary clearly and unambiguously inform the voter that the amendment will 
 
- 16 - 
prevent government and electric utilities from imposing regulatory barriers to 
supplying local solar electricity up to 2 megawatts to customers at the same or 
contiguous property.  The summary explains that the regulations which will be 
limited or prevented include government regulation of local solar electricity 
suppliers’ rates, service and territory, and unfavorable electricity rates, charges, or 
terms of service.  Although the phrase “unfavorable electricity rates, charges, or 
terms of service” is not defined in the ballot summary, it can fairly be said to 
reflect that portion of the amendment that prohibits an electric utility from 
imposing on a local solar electricity supplier’s customer “any special rate, charge, 
tariff, classification, term or condition of service, or utility rule or regulation, that 
is not also imposed on other customers of the same type or class that do not 
consume electricity from a local solar electricity supplier.”  Thus, the phrase is not 
ambiguous or misleading.  
By reading the ballot title and summary, the voter will be informed that 
government regulations—by both local government and state government—which 
would impede or impair the provision of local solar electricity will be limited, and 
that some such regulations will be completely prevented.  Further, the summary 
informs the voter that under the amendment, the solar electricity supply will be a 
“non-utility” supply.  This informs the voter that such a provider will not be 
 
- 17 - 
subject to at least some of the regulations that currently apply to a public “utility.”2  
Again, without considering the merits of such changes in the law governing 
utilities, we must conclude the ballot title and summary are not ambiguous or 
misleading, and do inform the voter of the changes that would be implemented 
under the amendment.   
 
As we have said many times, our “duty is to uphold the proposal unless it 
can be shown to be ‘clearly and conclusively defective.’ ”  Use of Marijuana for 
Certain Med. Conditions, 132 So. 3d at 795 (quoting In re Advisory Op. to Att’y 
Gen. re Florida’s Amend. to Reduce Class Size, 816 So. 2d 580, 582 (Fla. 2002)); 
see also Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Med. Liab. Claimant’s Comp. Amend., 880 
So. 2d 675, 676 (Fla. 2004).  We conclude that this high threshold has not been 
met.  The proposal has not been shown to be “clearly and conclusively defective” 
in any respect.  For these reasons, the ballot title and summary are approved for 
placement on the ballot.  However, we must also determine if the Financial Impact 
Statement meets the requirements of article XI, section 5(c), Florida Constitution, 
and section 100.371(5)(a), Florida Statutes. 
                                          
 
 
2.  Florida law currently defines “public utility” to be “every person, 
corporation, partnership, association, or other legal entity . . . . supplying electricity 
. . . to or for the public within this state.”  § 366.02(1), Fla. Stat. (2014).  However, 
that definition excludes certain cooperatives, municipalities, and others.   
 
- 18 - 
V.  FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
 
The Florida Constitution mandates that our advisory opinion address the 
Financial Impact Statement.  See Use of Marijuana for Certain Med. Conditions, 
132 So. 3d at 809.  Article XI, section 5(c), of the Florida Constitution, states that 
“[t]he legislature shall provide by general law, prior to the holding of an election 
pursuant to this section, for the provision of a statement to the public regarding the 
probable financial impact of any amendment proposed by initiative pursuant to 
section 3” of article XI of the Constitution.  The Legislature implemented this 
mandate by enactment of section 100.371(5)(a), Florida Statutes, which requires 
that within forty-five days after receipt by the Secretary of State of a proposed 
amendment to the state constitution by initiative petition, “the Financial Impact 
Estimating Conference shall complete an analysis and financial impact statement 
to be placed on the ballot of the estimated increase or decrease in any revenues or 
costs to state or local governments resulting from the proposed initiative.”  
§ 100.371(5)(a), Fla. Stat.  The Financial Impact Statement must be clear and 
unambiguous, and no more than 75 words in length.  § 100.371(5)(b)2., Fla. Stat.  
 
Our review of the Financial Impact Statement is narrow and only addresses 
“whether the statement is clear, unambiguous, consists of no more than seventy-
five words, and is limited to address the estimated increase or decrease in any 
revenues or costs to the state or local governments.”  Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re 
 
- 19 - 
Referenda Required for Adoption & Amend. of Local Gov’t Comprehensive Land 
Use Plans, 963 So. 2d 210, 214 (Fla. 2007).  We conclude that the Financial 
Impact Statement in this case meets these requirements.  As noted earlier, the 
Financial Impact Statement for the proposed amendment states: 
Based on current laws and administration, the amendment will 
result in decreased state and local government revenues overall.  The 
timing and magnitude of these decreases cannot be determined 
because they are dependent on various technological and economic 
factors that cannot be predicted with certainty.  State and local 
governments will incur additional costs, which will likely be minimal 
and partially offset by fees. 
 
The Financial Impact Statement is sixty-two words in length, which complies with 
the statutory word limit.  The statement addresses only the estimated increase or 
decrease in revenues and costs to state and local governments.  It clearly and 
unambiguously states that there will be decreased revenues for state and local 
governments and that the fees may offset a portion of any increased costs.  The 
statement also clearly and unambiguously explains that timing and magnitude of 
the decreased revenues could not be determined because of various technological 
and economic factors.  “[T]he financial impact statement is necessarily indefinite 
but not unclear or ambiguous.”  Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Fla. Growth Mgmt. 
Initiative Giving Citizens the Right to Decide Local Growth Mgmt. Plan Changes, 
2 So. 3d 118, 124 (Fla. 2008).  Further, the fact that the Financial Impact 
Estimating Conference is unable to determine the actual financial impact does not 
 
- 20 - 
render the Financial Impact Statement invalid.  See Florida Marriage Prot. Amend., 
926 So. 2d at 1241.  For these reasons, we hold that the Financial Impact Statement 
meets the requirements of law. 
VI.  CONCLUSION 
 
For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that the initiative petition and 
ballot title and summary meet the legal requirements of article XI, section 3, 
Florida Constitution, and section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes.  Further, the 
Financial Impact Statement complies with section 100.371(5), Florida Statutes.  
Therefore, we approve the proposed amendment and Financial Impact Statement 
for placement on the ballot. 
 
It is so ordered. 
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, and PERRY, 
JJ., concur. 
POLSTON, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
POLSTON, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
 
I concur with the majority’s conclusion that the initiative in this case does 
not violate the single-subject requirement.  However, because I conclude that the 
ballot summary is confusing and does not accurately describe the scope of the 
proposed amendment, I would not approve the initiative for placement on the 
ballot. 
 
- 21 - 
Section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (2014), provides the following clarity 
requirements for the ballot summary: 
The ballot summary of the amendment or other public measure shall 
be an explanatory statement, not exceeding 75 words in length, of the 
chief purpose of the measure. . . .   
The purpose of these requirements is “to provide fair notice of the content of the 
proposed amendment so that the voter will not be misled as to its purpose, and can 
cast an intelligent and informed ballot.”  Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Term 
Limits Pledge, 718 So. 2d 798, 803 (Fla. 1998).   
This Court’s review of the validity of a ballot title and summary under 
section 101.161(1) involves two inquiries:   
First, the Court asks whether “the ballot title and summary . . . fairly 
inform the voter of the chief purpose of the amendment.”  [Advisory 
Op. to Att’y Gen. re] Right to Treatment and Rehabilitation for Non-
Violent Drug Offenses, 818 So. 2d [491, 497 (Fla. 2002)].  Second, 
the Court asks “whether the language of the title and summary, as 
written, misleads the public.”  Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Right of 
Citizens to Choose Health Care Providers, 705 So. 2d 563, 566 (Fla. 
1998). 
Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. re Fairness Initiative Requiring Leg. Determination 
That Sales Tax Exemptions & Exclusions Serve a Public Purpose, 880 So. 2d 630, 
635-36 (Fla. 2004).  As this Court has explained, “a ballot title and summary 
cannot ‘fly under false colors’ or ‘hide the ball’ with regard to the true effect of an 
amendment.”  Fla. Dep’t of State v. Slough, 992 So. 2d 142, 147 (Fla. 2008).  
“When the summary of a proposed amendment does not accurately describe the 
 
- 22 - 
scope of the text of the amendment, it fails in its purpose and must be stricken.”  
Term Limits Pledge, 718 So. 2d at 804.   
 
Here, the ballot summary is confusing and does not accurately inform the 
voter of the true effect of the proposed amendment.  For example, the ballot 
summary states that the proposed amendment “[l]imits or prevents government and 
electric utility imposed barriers to supplying local solar electricity.”  However, this 
language does not clearly explain to the voter the scope of the limitation to 
government regulation involved.  In fact, the text of the amendment only permits 
“health, safety and welfare regulations, including, but not limited to, building 
codes, electrical codes, safety codes and pollution control regulations” if such 
regulations “do not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the supply of solar-
generated electricity by a local solar electricity supplier.”  Therefore, the proposed 
amendment would override any state or local health, safety, or welfare regulation if 
(presumably in the sole judgment of the solar electricity supplier) the regulation 
would “have the effect of prohibiting the supply of solar-generated electricity.”  
For example, the Department of Environmental Protection and the water  
management districts could not enforce laws and regulations designed to protect 
wildlife habitat, wetlands, and water resources if they would “have the effect of 
prohibiting” the siting of a local solar electricity generating facility within areas 
where such protections would apply.  Likewise, local governments would be 
 
- 23 - 
prohibited from enforcing wind resistance ordinances if a solar supplier claimed its 
facilities could not economically meet those standards.  Even local government 
land development codes, architectural review board regulations, deed covenants, 
and condominium and homeowners’ association restrictions would be 
unenforceable if deemed prohibitively problematic by a solar supplier. 
         The ballot summary also misleads the voter by stating that the proposed 
amendment addresses “non-utility” electric providers when, under current law, all 
electric providers are regulated as public utilities.  Specifically, the ballot summary 
states that “[l]ocal solar electricity supply is the non-utility supply of solar 
generated electricity from a facility rated up to 2 megawatts to customers at the 
same or contiguous property as the facility.”  The summary does not inform the 
voter that this would be a change in the law, and the text of the proposed 
amendment is what redefines “electric utility” to exclude “a local solar electricity 
supplier.”   
By redefining “electric utility,” the proposed amendment removes solar 
suppliers from the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission (PSC) and the 
protections the PSC provides.  The PSC is a separate body with comprehensive 
regulatory authority, and it supervises and regulates public utilities to ensure 
affordable rates, safe practices, and quality service throughout the State.  See ch. 
366, Florida Statutes (2014).  The ballot summary does not inform the voter that 
 
- 24 - 
the proposed amendment creates a new and limited class of electricity sellers that 
would not be subject to PSC regulation with respect to rates, service, or territory.  
These solar suppliers, unregulated by the PSC, would also (as explained above) be 
exempt from reasonable health, safety, and welfare regulations if they would “have 
the effect of prohibiting the supply of solar-generated electricity.”  Further, the 
costs of maintaining the regulated facilities to be ready to serve solar customers 
when solar power is limited or unavailable will likely be shifted to the remaining 
customers who do not contract with the unregulated solar suppliers. 
 
Finally, the confusing language in the ballot summary leads the voter to 
believe that this initiative is about someone who owns a small house or small 
business with a solar panel on the roof and wants to sell electricity on a small-
scale.  However, according to the Florida Electric Cooperatives Association, a 
single local solar generating facility capable of generating 2 megawatts of 
electricity would span over 12 acres and could serve approximately 714 customers.  
The ballot summary does not provide notice to the voter that this proposed 
amendment provides for this scale of completely unregulated electricity 
generation. 
 
Accordingly, because the ballot summary is confusing and does not convey 
the scope of the proposed amendment, I would not approve the initiative for 
placement on the ballot.  I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.   
 
- 25 - 
Two Cases:  
 
Original Proceeding – Advisory Opinion – Attorney General  
 
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Alfred Lagran Saunders, Assistant Attorney 
General, Allen C. Winsor, Solicitor General, and Rachel Erin Nordby, Deputy 
Solicitor General, Tallahassee, Florida,  
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
Robert Lowry Nabors, Gregory Thomas Stewart, and William Clark Garner of 
Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida,  
 
 
for Floridians for Solar Choice, Inc., Sponsor 
 
Stephen H. Grimes and David Bruce May, Jr. of Holland & Knight LLP, 
Tallahassee, Florida, and William Bartow Willingham and Michelle Lynn Hershel, 
Tallahassee, Florida, on behalf of Florida Electric Cooperatives Association, Inc.; 
Raoul G. Cantero, III and Thomas Neal McAliley of White & Case LLP, Miami, 
Florida, on behalf of Florida Chamber of Commerce; Linda Loomis Shelley of 
Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney, PC, Tallahassee, Florida, and Harry Morrison, Jr., 
Tallahassee, Florida, and Dan R. Stengle of Dan R. Stengle, Attorney, LLC, 
Tallahassee, Florida, and Jody Lamar Finklea and Amanda L. Swindle, 
Tallahassee, Florida, on behalf of Florida League of Cities, Inc. and Florida 
Municipal Electric Association, Inc.; Craig Edward Leen, City Attorney, Coral 
Gables, Florida, on behalf of the City of Coral Gables; Floyd Robert Self of Berger 
Singerman LLP, Tallahassee, Florida, and Javier Luis Vazquez of Berger 
Singerman LLP, Miami, Florida, on behalf of the City of Coral Gables and Florida 
State Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; Martin Stephen Turner of Broad and 
Cassel, Tallahassee, Florida, on behalf of Florida Chapter of the National Congress 
of Black Women, Inc.; William Christopher Browder, Vice President and General 
Counsel, and Terrie Louise Tressler, Deputy General Counsel, Orlando, Florida, on 
behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission; Susan Leslie Forbes Clark and Donna 
Elizabeth Blanton of the Radey Law Firm, Tallahassee, Florida, on behalf of 
National Black Chamber of Commerce; Major Best Harding and James Dawson 
Beasley of Ausley & McMullen, Tallahassee, Florida, on behalf of Tampa Electric 
Company; Jeffrey Alan Stone and Terrie Springer Didier of Beggs & Lane, 
R.L.L.P., Pensacola, Florida; John Todd Burnett, Deputy General Counsel, Saint 
Petersburg, Florida, on behalf of Duke Energy Florida; Kenneth Bradley Bell of 
Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida, on behalf of Gulf Power 
 
- 26 - 
Company; Barry Scott Richard of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida, 
and Alvin Bruce Davis of Squire Patton Boggs, Miami, Florida, on behalf of 
Florida Power and Light Company; and Carlos Genaro Muñiz of McGuireWoods 
LLP, Tallahassee, Florida, on behalf of Florida Council for Safe Communities,  
 
as Opponents