Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Climate Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill banning local "net zero" policies after heated debate; passes 5–3
Summary
CS for SB 16 28 would prohibit governmental entities from expending funds to implement, support or advance "net zero" policies and bar fees, taxes or cap‑and‑trade programs; the committee adopted a technical amendment and passed the bill 5–3 after extended questioning and public testimony.
Senator Avila told the Senate Environment & Natural Resources Committee that SB 16 28 defines a "net 0 policy" broadly — "any target, threshold, action, initiative, framework, requirement or policy related to reducing the use of carbon intensive products or activities" — and would prohibit governmental entities from spending funds to implement, support or advance such policies. He said the measure would also prohibit taxes, fees, penalties, offsets or cap‑and‑trade programs tied to net‑zero goals.
The committee adopted an Avila amendment that clarified the chemical definition of carbon dioxide and moved the bill forward. Committee members pressed the sponsor on whether modest local goals to reduce emissions (for example, a city goal to lower emissions or prefer electric buses) would be prohibited; Senator Avila and staff said the bill, as written, would prevent goal‑based policies if they were tied solely to a net‑zero threshold and could require resources to meet that goal.
Opponents — including Kim Ross of Rethink Energy Action Fund and the Sierra Club’s former Representative Jennifer Webb — testified the bill would have a "chilling effect" on cost‑effective policies and could block local access to grants, incentives and procurement practices that reduce greenhouse gases. Kim Ross told the committee: "This bill... would have a chilling effect on policies that are cost effective but reduce greenhouse gas emissions." Sierra Club Florida said the bill would "kneecap" a thriving clean energy sector and eliminate local resilience planning.
Senator Smith argued the bill would "wipe all those plans out entirely," removing local authority used to address flooding, saltwater intrusion and other climate risks. Sponsor Avila repeatedly framed the proposal as protecting residents and businesses from added taxation and promoting predictability for investment.
After debate the committee voted to report CS for SB 16 28 favorably by recorded roll call: Yes — Avila, Desigley, Harrell, Mayfield, Chair Rodriguez; No — Arrington, Polsky, Smith (5–3). The committee record shows extensive public testimony both for and against; next steps are committee report and scheduling for further Senate action.
