Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re Limits or Prevents Bar — Polston, J., Concurring in Part and Dissenting…

Summary

Justice Polston concurred that the initiative satisfied the single-subject requirement but dissented from approving it for the ballot. He concluded that the ballot summary was confusing, failed to disclose the amendment's broad limits on regulation, mischaracterized solar suppliers as non-utility providers, and did not explain the consequences of removing them from Public Service Commission oversight. The opinion would have rejected ballot placement on that basis.