Florida Solar Energy Subsidies And Personal Solar Use, Amendment 1 (2016)

Florida Amendment 1
Election date November 8, 2016
Topic Energy
Status d Defeated
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

2016 measures
August 30
Amendment 4 a
November 8
Amendment 1 d
Amendment 2 a
Amendment 3 a
Amendment 5 a
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

The Florida Solar Energy Subsidies and Personal Solar Use Initiative, also known as Amendment 1, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Florida as an initiated constitutional amendment.^[1] It was defeated.

For a constitutional amendment to be approved in Florida, it must win a supermajority vote of 60 percent of those voting on the question, according to Section 5 of Article XI. This requirement was established via Amendment 3 in 2006.

Election results[edit]

Amendment 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
d No		4,418,788	49.21%
Yes		4,560,682	50.79%

Election results from Florida Division of Elections

Overview[edit]

State of the ballot measure campaigns[edit]

As of January 30, 2017, the support campaign group, Consumers for Smart Solar, had a total of about $26.4 million in contributions. This total was roughly 10 times the amount that the opposition campaign group, Floridians for Solar Choice, had raised. The signature gathering effort and support campaign for Amendment 1 received a majority of funding from utility companies.

Relationship between Amendment 1 and Amendment 4[edit]

Amendment 1 was one of two solar-related measures that Florida voters decided in 2016. The other measure, Amendment 4, was designed to provide property tax exemptions for solar power equipment.

Initiative design[edit]

Components[edit]

The two main components of this initiative were as follows:

1. The initiative was designed to put the right to produce solar energy, which is provided by state statute, into the state constitution.
2. The initiative was designed to allow state and local governments to prevent people who do not choose to produce solar energy from being required to subsidize the production of solar energy.

What supporters and opponents said[edit]

Supporters argued that Amendment 1 would further protect the rights of Florida residents to own solar equipment, while also protecting electricity consumers from unfair prices and poor businesses practices.

Opponents argued that Amendment 1 was put on the ballot by big utility companies to protect their control over the energy market and inhibit net metering. They claimed Amendment 1 was designed to prevent increased solar energy production by Florida residents and the sale of that solar energy back into the electric grid under the pretext of consumer protection.

Text of measure[edit]

Ballot title[edit]

The ballot title was:^[1][2]

Ballot summary[edit]

The ballot summary was:^[1][2]

Financial impact statement[edit]

The financial impact statement for Amendment 1 was:^[2]

Constitutional changes[edit]

See also: Article X of the Florida Constitution

Amendment 1 was written to add Section 29 to Article X of the Florida Constitution. The full text of the constitutional changes is below:^[1][2]

Support[edit]

Consumers for Smart Solar/Yes on 1 for the Sun led the support campaign for Amendment 1.^[4][5][6]

Supporters[edit]

The majority of support for Amendment 1 was provided by electric utility companies.^[7] Consumers for Smart Solar listed the following endorsements on their website:^[8]

Other supporters[edit]

• Kevin Doyle, executive director of Consumer Energy Alliance - Florida^[12]

Arguments[edit]

Summary[edit]

Supporters made the following arguments in support of Amendment 1:

• Amendment 1 would guarantee the right of Florida residents to produce their own solar energy production
• Amendment 1 would protect every Florida consumer, including those who do not produce their own solar energy, and address undesirable solar business practices like “third-party leasing”

Individual arguments[edit]

Jim Kallinger, a former state representative and co-chair of Consumers for Smart Solar, wrote the following:^[13]

Kallinger also wrote pieces responding to various Amendment 1 opponent arguments and editorials in the Bradenton Herald and Naples Daily News.^[14][15]

Sarah Bascom, spokeswoman for Consumers for Smart Solar, said the Smart Solar Amendment would^[16]

Screven Watson, board member for Consumers for Smart Solar, argued that Amendment 1 would provide consumer protections that could combat practices like "third-party leasing," in which out-of-state solar companies operate in Florida and are immune from consumer protection laws, saying the following:^[17]

Watson also told Action News Jax, "I can’t understand why this is being cast as anti-solar.... Amendment 1 doesn’t give utility companies any power. It gives government power."^[18]

Dick Batchelor, a former Democratic member of the Florida House of Representatives and co-chair of Consumers for Smart Solar, said,^[19]

Matthew Carter, a former Public Service Commissioner, said,^[19]

Adora Obi Nweze, a life member of the NAACP and president of the Florida State Conference of NAACP Branches, wrote the following:^[20]

John R. Smith, chairman of the Business Political Action Committee of Palm Beach County (BIZPAC), said the following:^[21]

Julio Fuentes, president & CEO of the Florida State Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and Javier Palomarez, president & CEO of the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, said the following in a guest author piece in Florida Politics:^[22]

Opposition[edit]

Floridians for Solar Choice led the opposition campaign for Amendment 1.^[23] The group failed to get a competing measure on the November ballot.

Opponents[edit]

The Floridians for Solar Choice campaign website listed the following opponents for Amendment 1:^[24]

Arguments[edit]

Summary[edit]

Opponents made the following arguments in opposition to Amendment 1:

• Amendment 1 is backed by utilities and would extend their control over solar energy production while limiting customer solar production
• Amendment 1 would potentially prohibit the practice of net metering
• Amendment 1 is unnecessary and misleading because it would provide rights and protections that Florida residents already have.

Individual arguments[edit]

Shannon Baker-Branstetter, the energy and environment policy counsel for Consumers Union stated:^[25]

Pamela Goodman, president of the League of Women Voters Florida, and Floridians for Solar Choice Board Members Tony Perfetti and Stephen Smith enumerated the following Amendment 1 opposition arguments in a Tallahassee Democrat opinion piece:^[26]

David Guest, managing attorney for the Florida office of Earthjustice, said:^[27]

Debbie Dooley, a Tea Party activist, said that Consumers for Smart Solar:^[28]

Stephen A. Smith, the executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and a board member of Floridians for Solar Choice, said:^[19]

Neville Williams argued the following in opposition to Amendment 1 in a guest commentary for the Naples Daily News:^[29]

Barbara Pariente, a Florida Supreme Court justice, wrote the following in her dissent for the case that allowed Amendment 1 to reach the ballot:^[30]

Cynthia Shahan, an organic farmer and licensed acupuncturist, wrote the following in opposition to the amendment:^[31]

Larry Chamblin, a member of 350 Pensacola, wrote the following:^[32]

Wes Wheeler, an attorney in Gainesville, said the following:^[33]

Jimmy Buffett, a musician and songwriter, said the following in a video about the Florida 2016 amendments:^[34]

Russ White, a retired fire services chief, wrote the following:^[35]

Carl Hiassen wrote the following in the Miami Herald:^[36]

Brad Rogers wrote the following after an audio tape of James Madison Institute Vice President of Policy Sal Nuzzo was leaked:^[37]

Mark Lane wrote the following in The Daytona Beach News-Journal:^[38]

Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, referred to Amendment 1 as a "phony-baloney initiative," saying the following:^[39][40]

Note: PolitiFact fact-checked Gore's statement and concluded that it was "half true," saying that Gore "went a bit too far to say the amendment would automatically grant utilities unchecked 'authority' to kill net metering."

Thomas P. Kimbis, interim president for Solar Energy Industries Association, wrote the following:^[41]

David Guest and others argued that Amendment 1 could potentially get rid of net metering, the practice that requires electric companies to purchase excess electricity from solar homes. Amendment 1 states that state and local governments would have the authority "to ensure that consumers who do not choose to install solar are not required to subsidize the costs of backup power and electric grid access to those who do." The amendment could allow utilities to argue that net metering is a "subsidy" for solar, and lawmakers could prohibit the use of net metering.^[28]

No on 1 fact sheet arguments[edit]

The following arguments against Amendment 1 were listed in the Floridians for Solar Choice "Vote No on 1" fact sheet:^[42]

• The amendment is backed by Florida utility companies and will end up limiting customer-owned solar.
• The amendment would create barriers for solar customers.
• The amendment is misleading because it promises rights and protections that Floridians already have.

Noteworthy events[edit]

Sal Nuzzo of the James Madison Institute

Audio recording leak[edit]

On October 18, 2016, an audio tape containing a speech delivered by Sal Nuzzo, vice president of the Florida-based policy think tank called the James Madison Institute (JMI), at the October 2 State Energy/Environment Leadership Summit was leaked. Nuzzo discussed how the Amendment 1 support group, Consumers for Smart Solar, asked JMI to help prepare for the amendment campaign and indicated that the measure was designed to appeal to pro-solar voters while it's purpose was to “completely negate anything they (pro-solar interests) would try to do either legislatively or constitutionally down the road.” He referred to the group’s move of qualifying Amendment 1 for the ballot as a “savvy maneuver,” saying that the group could use “political jiu-jitsu” to harness the popularity of solar in their favor.^[43][44][45]

Nuzzo said that Amendment 1 proponents approached JMI when Floridians for Solar Choice, which opposed Amendment 1, started an initiative petition drive to put an amendment on the ballot designed to make solar production a right, prevent fees on solar producers, and boost the financial incentive for third-party solar energy providers. Nuzzo stated, “So Consumers for Smart Solar came to JMI and said you guys are the adults in the room, you’re the ones that have access to the research, to the scholars, to the SPN, to a lot of the national organizations, we need some help because not only are they [Floridans for Solar Choice] going to get the 700,000 signatures to get it on the ballot, it’s actually polling in the 70 percent range.” Nuzzo said Consumers for Smart Energy proposed their competing initiative, which was on the ballot as Amendment 1, and Nuzzo then described the initiative as an intelligent strategy to combine pro-solar language with consumer protections that could be used to block the efforts of solar advocates to provide incentives for solar expansion.

Ultimately, the initiative proposed by Floridians for Solar Choice did not reach the ballot.^[46]

Response from Amendment 1 supporters[edit]

The Tampa Bay Times reported that after the audio was leaked, Consumers for Smart Solar removed nearly all references to the James Madison Institute from its website and social media sites, including a previously prominent link to the James Madison Institute's voter guide and at least six other mentions.^[47]

Response from Amendment 1 opponents[edit]

Floridians for Solar Choice responded to the leaked statement from Nuzzo by publicizing the story as much as possible and by saying it confirmed the arguments put forward by the No on Amendment 1 campaign. The campaign was based upon the argument that Amendment 1 was designed and funded by utility companies to deceive voters into thinking it was a pro-solar measure, when, in fact, it was written to benefit utility companies and inhibit solar expansion.^[23][45]

Concerning the audio recording, David Pomerantz, executive director of the Energy and Policy Institute, which opposed Amendment 1, said, “[proponents] were very clear about the utilities’ plan when they thought the public wasn’t listening: They’re trying to confuse voters into believing their utility-backed ballot initiative is pro-solar. It’s a dirty trick, and Floridians should show them that they’re too smart to let them get away with it.”^[45]

Response from James Madison Institute[edit]

In response to the audio recording being released, Robert McClure, the executive director of the James Madison Institute, issued a statement in response saying that Nuzzo misspoke. McClure said, “At an event with an unfamiliar, national audience, Mr. Nuzzo generalized his commentary and misspoke in reference to JMI partnering with Consumers for Smart Solar in any capacity. JMI has never worked with or received funding from Consumers for Smart Solar. We have released policy positions on both solar amendments and have publicly spoken on the pros and cons of each.”^[46]

Position changes[edit]

Florida Professional Firefighters[edit]

On November 4, 2016, the Florida Professional Firefighters withdrew support for Amendment 1. The organization said the following in a press release regarding its decision:^[48]

Campaign finance[edit]

See also: Ballot measure campaign finance, 2016 and Campaign finance requirements for Florida ballot measures

As of January 30, 2017, the support campaign had a total of about $26.3 million in contributions, roughly 10 times the amount that the opposition campaign group, Floridians for Solar Choice, had raised.^[49][50]

Support[edit]

As of January 30, 2017, the support campaign group for Amendment 1, Consumers for Smart Solar, had raised $26,368,925 and spent $25,933,428.

Committee info:

Top contributors:

The following is a list of those who contributed $100,000 or more to the campaign supporting the initiative. As of January 30, 2017, Gulf Power Company, Duke Energy, Tampa Electric Company, and Florida Power and Light had contributed about $22 million of the $26.4 million raised by the campaign.^[51][6]

Support campaign finance timeline[edit]

Opposition[edit]

According to the Florida campaign finance report activity, the group leading the opposition campaign for Amendment 1, Floridians for Solar Choice, had raised a total of about $2,480,957.93 in contributions and had spent $2,459,396.58 as of January 30, 2017.^[50]

Committee info:

Top contributors:

As of January 30, 2017, the top five donors contributed about $2.2 million of the $2.5 million raised by the opposition campaign.^[50]

Media editorials[edit]

Support[edit]

Ballotpedia did not find media editorials supporting Amendment 1. If you are aware of an editorial, please email it to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Opposition[edit]

• The Tampa Bay Times said the following:^[58]

The Times published another opposition editorial on October 27, 2016.^[59]

• The Tampa Bay Times published a second editorial:^[60]

• The Tampa Bay Times published a third editorial after leaked audio of comments made by James Madison Institute Vice President of Policy Sal Nuzzo surfaced:^[61]

• The Ocala Star Banner, referencing state supreme court Justice Barbara Pariente's dissenting opinion from a lawsuit over Amendment 1, said the following:^[62]

• The Bradenton Herald said the following:^[63]

• The Gainesville Sun editorial board wrote the following:^[64]

• The Bradenton Herald editorial board said the following:^[65]

• The Herald-Tribune editorial board wrote the following:^[66]

The Herald-Tribune also published two other opposing editorials later in October 2016.^[67][68]

• The Sun Sentinel editorial board said the following:^[69]

The Sentinel later published another opposition editorial in October 2016.^[70]

• The Folio Weekly editor wrote the following:^[71]

• The Palm Beach Post editorial board said the following:^[72]

• The Orlando Sentinel: Michael Joe Murphy writing an Orland Sentinel endorsements piece argued that utilities probably wouldn't have funded the campaign for Amendment 1 if it was not designed to help them maintain a monopoly on electricity production and that, regardless of any merits of the policy, it did not belong in the constitution. Murphy wrote:^[73]

The Sentinel also published two editorials in opposition to Amendment 1 in October 2016. One of the editorials reiterated the paper's opposition after leaked audio regarding Amendment 1 emerged.^[73][74]

• The Cape Coral Daily Breeze:^[75]

• The Florida Times-Union:^[76]

The Times-Union published another editorial opposing Amendment 1 on November 4, 2016.^[77]

• The Ledger:^[78]

• The Lehigh Acres Citizens:^[79]

• Miami Community Newspapers:^[80]

• The Miami Herald:^[81]

• The Naples Daily News:^[82]

• The News Press:^[83]

• The Northwest Florida Daily News:^[84]

• The Panama City News Herald^[85]

• The Pensacola News Journal:^[86]

The Journal published a second opposing editorial on October 31, 2016.^[87]

• The Sanibel-Captiva Islander^[88]

• The Sarasota Herald Tribune:^[89]

• The Florida Today editorial board:^[90]

• Treasure Coast Newspapers editorial board^[91]

• The West Volusia Beacon^[92]

• The Florida Courier wrote the following:^[93]

• Creative Loafing Tampa wrote the following:^[94]

• The Tallahassee Democrat^[95]

Other[edit]

Note: both the Sun Sentinel and the Orlando Sentinel solidified their positions as opposed to Amendment 1 later on in the year. These opposing endorsements are listed above.

• The Sun Sentinel expressed concern over the language of Amendment 1 and its place in the constitution, writing the following in April of 2016:^[96]

• The Orlando Sentinel, which is owned by the same company that owns the Sun Sentinel, Tribune Publishing, also said the following in May of 2016:^[97]

Background[edit]

Solar energy was the focus of several ballot measures in Florida in 2015 and 2016. Another competing citizen-initiated amendment petition was circulated in 2015, but was withdrawn due to a shortage of signatures. That initiative would have given businesses and individuals the constitutional right to produce up to two megawatts of solar energy that could be sold to others at the same or contiguous property. The support campaign for that measure, Floridians for Solar Choice, led the opposition campaign for Amendment 1. In addition to these citizen initiatives, the Florida Legislature approved a measure to appear on the ballot in August 2016 as Amendment 4, which provided property tax exemptions for renewable energy devices.

Main arguments[edit]

Supporters argued that the first component of Amendment 1 would encourage the expansion of solar power by providing an explicit constitutional right to solar energy production and that the second component would allow consumers to be treated fairly by preventing them from being forced to subsidize solar energy. Nearly 75 percent of campaign contributions in support of Amendment 1 were provided by electric companies.

Opponents argued that the second component of this initiative, which would have authorized the government to ensure that people who declined to produce solar energy would not have to subsidize solar energy production costs, could have been used to limit solar energy production and strengthen the power of utility companies. Specifically, opponents expressed concern that lawmakers might have been induced to prohibit the practice of net metering, which requires utilities to purchase surplus electricity generated from solar-powered homes. Opponents also argued that the right of Florida residents to solar energy production is already protected by various regulations and agreements, making the first component of this amendment unnecessary. Some critics claimed that Amendment 1 proponents included the provision protecting the right to solar energy production to make Amendment 1 look like a pro-solar measure even though it could reduce the use of solar power.

Relationship between Amendments 1 and 4[edit]

Floridians for Solar Choice campaign logo for August election

Amendment 4, which appeared on the August 2016 ballot, was legislatively referred to the ballot. Amendment 1, which appeared on the November 2016 ballot, was put on the ballot through a citizen-initiated signature collection. Amendment 1 was designed to (1) constitutionalize the right to personal solar equipment—a right which was protected in state statute as of the beginning of 2016—and (2) constitutionally protect any law against requiring residents to subsidize solar power.

Though the measures appeared on different ballots and were not directly related to each other, some argued that aspects of the two amendments were in conflict. Amendment 4 was designed to provide property tax exemptions for solar power equipment. In other words, property owners—both private and commercial—would not have to pay additional property taxes when property values increased through the addition of solar power equipment, making it cheaper for private property owners and businesses to install solar equipment. According to Amendment 1 opponents, Amendment 1 could have been used to restrict access to the power grid from residents and small businesses seeking to sell solar power, which could have reduced incentives to install and generate solar power.

Solar power in Florida[edit]

See also: Energy policy in Florida

Despite Florida's nickname as the Sunshine State, the majority of the renewable energy produced there comes from biomass, not solar. Solar energy accounted for 5 percent of all the energy generated from renewable sources in 2014. The use of solar energy was expected to increase in the coming years, however; according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, photovoltaic (PV) solar is expected to account for almost one-third of Florida's new renewable energy capacity by 2023.^[98]

In 1980, voters approved Amendment 1, which instituted an ad valorem tax exemption for renewable energy source devices and "real property on which a renewable energy source device is installed."

In 2012, H.B. 7117 established a renewable energy tax credit program, which expired in 2017. The credit equals one cent per kilowatt hour of electricity produced and sold during a tax year for taxpayers using renewable energy, including solar power. According to the Florida Solar Energy Industries Association, it is illegal for any entity, including homeowner associations, from banning the installation of solar panels on buildings in the state. These entities can, however, have an approval process. Florida does not have a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). It does, however, have other incentive programs to increase renewable energy facilities, including a net metering program. Net metering is a billing system where customers who generate their own electricity—usually using renewable sources such as solar panels—are able to sell their excess electricity back to the grid.^{[99][100][101][102]}

Net metering
According to the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, "net metering is required by law in most U.S. states, but state policies vary widely."^[103] While many energy experts support net metering, there is debate over the price at which those generating excess power should be compensated. In some states, consumers are compensated at the retail rate, while other states compensate individual producers at the wholesale rate. Retail electricity rates are the final prices paid by consumers and include the costs of that electricity from generation to delivery. Wholesale electricity rates "include the cost of the fuel used to generate electricity and the cost of buying the power," but do not include the costs of transporting or delivering electricity.^[100][104]

Proponents of net metering argue the system is beneficial because it promotes renewable energy and incentivizes consumers to produce their own electricity—a practice that proponents argue is more efficient. Consumers are often drawn to this program because they can save money by generating their own electricity (as opposed to buying it from a utility company), and they can even receive credit back on their electricity bill for the excess electricity they generated.^[105]

Opponents of net metering argue that customers who sell their electricity back to the grid at the full electricity price are not paying for the fixed costs associated with power generation—such as wires, poles, meters, and other infrastructure—and that these costs are shifted onto customers without net metering. According to these opponents, consumers producing their own energy are often still using power supplied by a utility company when their own generation isn't sufficient. For example, on cloudy days, those with solar panels must rely on the grid system for electricity. Instead, opponents argue that consumers should be paid the wholesale price for electricity.^[100]

Polls[edit]

See also: Polls, 2016 ballot measures

Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Florida

On November 24, 2015, the initiative was sent to the Florida Supreme Court for review to ensure that the amendment was unambiguous, covered a single topic, and the ballot summary ran no more than 75 words. Supporters needed to collect at least 683,149 valid signatures by February 1, 2016, to qualify the measure for the 2016 ballot. Petitioners submitted 720,395 valid signatures on February 3, 2016, according to the secretary of state. The measure was then certified and given a ballot number.^[1]

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired National Voter Outreach, Silver Bullet, Inc., and Campaign Audit & Trust LLC to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $5,522,739.59 was spent to collect the 683,149 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $8.08.^[106] Signature verification cost sponsors $314,719.15.

Lawsuit[edit]

Floridians for Solar Choice, a group that had submitted a competing measure for the 2016 ballot, announced on January 11, 2016, that they had filed a brief against Amendment 1 with the Florida Supreme Court. The brief claimed that Consumers for Smart Solar's measure was misleading, that it promised solar energy rights for voters that state law already provided, and that it lured voters into thinking it would increase access to rooftop solar when it would actually reduce solar options. On February 15, 2016, the Florida Supreme Court granted permission for oral arguments to be heard on May 5, 2016. On February 24, 2016, the court rescheduled oral arguments for March 7, 2016.^{[107][108][109][110]}

On March 31, 2016, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that Amendment 1 was not misleading and approved it to remain on the November ballot. In a 4-3 decision, the court stated that the measure was clearly worded and was compliant with the state's single-subject requirement for constitutional amendments. In the dissenting opinion, Justice Barbara Pariente wrote that Amendment 1 was "masquerading as a pro-solar initiative."^[111]

State profile[edit]

Presidential voting pattern[edit]

See also: Presidential voting trends in Florida

Florida voted Republican in five out of the seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.

Pivot Counties (2016)

Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, four are located in Florida, accounting for 1.94 percent of the total pivot counties.^[112]

Pivot Counties (2020)

In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. Florida had three Retained Pivot Counties and one Boomerang Pivot County, accounting for 1.66 and 4.00 percent of all Retained and Boomerang Pivot Counties, respsectively.

More Florida coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in Florida
• United States congressional delegations from Florida
• Public policy in Florida
• Endorsers in Florida
• Florida fact checks
• More...

Related measures[edit]

Energy measures on the ballot in 2016
State	Measures
Washington	Washington Modifying Tax Exemption Criteria for Alternative Fuel Vehicles, Advisory Vote 15 d
Nevada	Nevada Legislature to Minimize Regulations on the Energy Market and Eliminate Legal Energy Monopolies, Question 3 a
Florida	Florida Property Tax Exemptions for Renewable Energy Equipment, Amendment 4 a
Washington	Washington Carbon Emission Tax and Sales Tax Reduction, Initiative 732 d

See also[edit]

Suggest a link

• Florida 2016 ballot measures
• 2016 ballot measures
• Florida Legislature
• List of Florida ballot measures

External links[edit]

• Proposed Constitutional Amendments to be voted on November 8, 2016 (Voter Guide)

Support[edit]

• Consumers for Smart Solar website
• Consumers for Smart Solar Facebook
• Consumers for Smart Solar Twitter

Opposition[edit]

• Floridians for Solar Choice website
• Floridians for Solar Choice Facebook
• Floridians for Solar Choice Twitter

Footnotes[edit]

	v • e State of Florida Tallahassee (capital)
Elections	What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures
Government	Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy