Florida lawmakers are advancing a proposal that would stop cities and counties from cutting their own fossil fuel use, even as rising seas and stronger storms put local infrastructure at risk. The measure targets “net zero” rules for public buildings and fleets, effectively telling local governments that decisions about their own energy and emissions must be made in Tallahassee, not at city hall.
The fight is not just about climate targets on paper. It is about whether communities like Orlando, Tampa and Miami Springs can decide how their buses run, how their water plants are powered and how quickly they move away from gas toward cleaner options.
What SB 1628 would actually do
The proposal at the center of the debate, identified in legislative trackers as FL S1628, is written to stop governmental entities in Florida from adopting or enforcing “net-zero policies.” In practice, that means a city or county could be barred from setting rules that require its own buildings, vehicles or utilities to steadily reduce climate pollution to zero over time. The bill defines these net-zero policies broadly, so a local rule that phases out gas boilers in public schools or replaces diesel garbage trucks with electric models could be swept in.
Supporters frame the measure as a way to keep regulations uniform across the state, but the language reaches deep into local decision making. It would apply to governmental entities in Jan and other jurisdictions that want to manage their own energy use, limiting their ability to set standards for public facilities, fleets and procurement that go beyond state requirements.
A new front in Florida’s preemption campaign
SB 1628 does not arrive in a vacuum. Florida has already used state power to block local climate and energy rules, starting with a 2021 law known in legislative records as Preemption Over Restriction. That statute, labeled CS/CS/HB 919, explicitly Prohibits municipalities and counties from restricting the types of fuel or energy a utility can deliver, effectively blocking local bans on new gas hookups. By writing “919” into state law, lawmakers signaled that energy policy would be set at the Capitol, not by city commissions.
Earlier efforts to move away from fossil fuels in places like Tampa ran into that wall. When local leaders there explored a renewable energy resolution, Lawmakers backed bills sponsored by Hutson, and Republican Governor Ron DeSantis signed them, so Florida law now prohibits local governments from blocking gas infrastructure or requiring developers to install electric vehicle chargers. SB 1628 would extend that same preemption logic from private utilities and new buildings into the internal operations of city and county governments themselves.
How the new bill targets local climate action
The latest measure is being driven in the Senate by Jan sponsor Sen Bryan Avila, R-Miami Springs, who has argued that “net zero” policies from local governments drove up costs and discouraged people from relocating to Florida. In his telling, city rules that require more efficient buildings or cleaner fleets amount to a hidden tax on residents and businesses. By defining net-zero policies as a problem, the bill positions local climate planning as an economic threat rather than a tool to manage risk.
Reporting from TALLAHASSEE, Fla describes how Avila’s legislation would ban many local efforts to cut emissions, including requirements for public transit systems or water treatment plants to limit carbon pollution. A Jan account of the bill’s scope notes that it would reach cities, counties and other types of local agencies that have been experimenting with cleaner energy for their own operations. Instead of letting those governments decide how to run their fleets or power their buildings, the measure would lock in state control over whether they can pursue net-zero goals at all.
DeSantis and the broader rollback of climate policy
Governor Ron DeSantis has already signaled where he stands on climate language in state law. In a high profile move, he signed a measure that deleted “climate change” from key Florida statutes and described the shift as a rejection of what he called the agenda of “the radical green zealots.” Coverage of that decision credited the reporting to By Coral Davenport of The New York Times, with images by Scott Keeler of the Associated Press, and noted that the law was Published May at 10:50 EDT. That episode underscored how aggressively the governor is reshaping Florida’s official stance on global warming, not just in policy but in language.
The current bill fits neatly into that pattern. Advocates who track the Legislature describe it as “an idea only the fossil fuel industry could love,” pointing out that The Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee advanced the proposal even though it would wipe out local clean energy ordinances already in place. In a Week 3 recap of the 2026 session, one update from Feb warned that the committee’s vote would strip cities of tools they use to manage risk from heat, flooding and storms, as detailed in a Team Anna briefing.
Local pushback and national context
Opposition inside the Capitol has focused on what the bill would mean for local problem solving. In Jan testimony, Sen. Carlos Guillermo Smith, D-Orlando, warned that Avila’s proposal would tie the hands of local officials as they try to address problems in their communities. He argued that mayors and county commissioners are closest to the impacts of flooding, heat and insurance shocks, and that telling them they cannot manage their own emissions sends a message to investors to look elsewhere.
The clash in Florida is part of a broader national trend in which industry-backed groups push state “preemption” laws to block local climate action. One analysis found that, Alongside lobbying against building electrification, gas utilities and allied trade associations have successfully advocated for state-level preemption that stymies city efforts to curb fossil fuel use, with similar laws already on the books in multiple states and more legislation introduced elsewhere. Florida has been at the forefront of that movement, and SB 1628 would deepen its role as a testing ground for how far state leaders can go in overruling local climate policy.
More from Morning Overview