The Capitolist gives its take on last week's Florida state Supreme Court oral arguments on ballot language for the proposed electric choice initiative, with the Capitolist reporting that a lawyer for electric choice advocates inadvertently admitted that the ballot language is inconsistent and, in The Capitolist summation, "misleading"

The exchange, which was previously reported, included the lawyer for choice advocates conceding in the affirmation to a justice's question concerning the language was "inconsistent." The term "misleading" was not used during such line of questioning

See The Capitolist for the story

In other news related to the Florida electric choice ballot process, Florida Politics reports that, in implementing new statute, election officials say petitions should be pre-sorted, with an advocate for electric choice expressing concern about an undue burden due to the discussed timeline. See the story here

Tags:
Florida   Electric choice  

Comment on this story


ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com
TPV-SALES-EXECUTIVE -- Back Office Provider -- Other
Sr-Market-Risk-Analyst -- Wholesale Supplier/Trader -- New York - New York City Metro
Energy-Regulatory-Specialist -- Other -- Other
More Stories on RetailEnergyX.com:
Report Alleges Utility 'Bankrolled' News Site, Which Parroted Talking Points Against Retail Choice
Gov.'s Administration Favors Bill Banning New Residential Enrollments With Retail Energy Suppliers
Report: Lubbock, Texas Poised To OK Buyout Of LP&L's Power Supply Contract
KPRC's Investigation Says Texans Have Paid $28 Billion More Under Electric Choice
Former Pa. PUC Chair Cawley Recommends Banning, Or 'Reducing' Reliance On, Door-to-Door Sales