Local governments across Florida could soon be barred from adopting climate change initiatives under a proposal advancing in the state Legislature.
A Florida House committee just approved a bill (HB 1217) that would significantly limit cities and counties from enacting policies aimed at reducing climate change impacts. The proposal follows legislation signed nearly two years ago by Gov. Ron DeSantis that removed the requirement for the state to factor climate change into its energy planning.
The new bill establishes state policy prohibiting government entities from adopting or implementing so-called “net-zero policies.” This restriction would apply to comprehensive plans, land development regulations, transportation strategies, and other governmental policies or procedures. It would also prevent local governments from paying membership dues to organizations that advocate for net-zero goals and from creating cap-and-trade programs designed to curb carbon emissions.
“The goal is statewide consistency. We want uniformity from the Panhandle to the Keys,” said Rep. Berny Jacques, a Republican from Seminole and co-sponsor of the measure, arguing that allowing individual cities or counties to impose stricter policies could create costly and burdensome regulations in certain areas.
Over the past 15 years, at least 14 Florida local governments — including Tallahassee, Gainesville, Orlando, Tampa, St. Petersburg, Sarasota, and others — have adopted resolutions committing to transition to 100% clean, renewable energy in the future.
Meanwhile, the Southeast Florida Climate Change Compact — a regional partnership formed in 2009 by Broward, Miami-Dade, Monroe, and Palm Beach counties — has worked collaboratively to cut greenhouse gas emissions and strengthen climate resilience. In a 2022 report, the group called for reducing emissions 50% by 2030 and reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.
Critics warn the bill could discourage practical, cost-saving environmental measures. Brian Lee of ReThink Energy Florida told lawmakers the legislation could undermine purchasing policies that reduce carbon pollution by promoting energy-efficient buildings and businesses. He noted that many of these programs attract outside funding through grants and incentives, and eliminating them could harm residents and force local governments to return financial support.
Supporters of the measure counter that some climate initiatives function as indirect taxes. Jacques argued that investments such as electric vehicle fleets and charging infrastructure could increase costs for governments and, ultimately, consumers.
“When you have these types of new financial burdens, it makes things more costly,” Lee said.
During the committee debate, Rep. Ashley Gantt, a Democrat from Miami, questioned whether there was evidence that local climate policies significantly burden taxpayers. Jacques acknowledged he did not have specific data but maintained that certain clean-energy investments would likely raise expenses.
The bill cleared the committee along party lines, with Republicans in favor and Democrats opposed. It must pass one more House committee before reaching the full chamber. A companion measure in the Senate (SB 1628) still faces two committee hearings.
The House hearing occurred the same day the Trump administration announced plans to revoke a 2009 Environmental Protection Agency rule known as the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding, which determined that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare.
Source: Mimi Times Online