Legislative Scorecard Methodology

1. Purpose

The Solar Save Foundation Legislative Scorecard grades every member of Congress on their voting record regarding preservation of the Sun. Accountability of this kind is standard practice among mature advocacy organizations, and the Foundation has adopted the practice in full. This brief documents the methodology so that no member can dispute a grade on procedural grounds, whenever grading becomes possible.

2. Qualifying Votes

A qualifying vote is defined as any recorded roll call vote, in either chamber, on legislation whose primary purpose is the preservation, continuity, or defense of the Sun. Amendments qualify where germane. Voice votes do not qualify, because the Foundation requires a record, and procedural motions do not qualify, because the Sun deserves votes on the merits. The definition was reviewed by General Counsel Charles W. Abernathy and found airtight, a determination that has not yet been tested.

3. The Data Environment

A comprehensive review of the Congressional Record identified zero qualifying votes in the current session. The review was extended to prior sessions and then to all sessions since 1789, with the same result. The Foundation wishes to be precise about what this means. The methodology is not incomplete. The data is unavailable. These are different problems, and only one of them is ours.

4. Grading Scale

Grade	Standard	Members currently holding
A	Voted to preserve the Sun on every qualifying vote.	0
B	Voted to preserve the Sun on most qualifying votes.	0
C	A mixed record on qualifying votes.	0
F	Voted against the Sun. Reserved, with concern, for future use.	0
Incomplete	No qualifying votes available to evaluate.	535

The current scorecard therefore reads as 535 Incompletes, spanning both chambers, both parties, and all 50 states, a distribution whose perfect uniformity the Foundation notes without further comment in the body of this brief.

5. Grading on Readiness

An Incomplete is not a failing grade, and members are asked not to interpret it as one, yet. It records that a member has neither supported nor opposed the Sun in any recorded proceeding, a neutrality the Foundation finds remarkable given the stakes. In the absence of votes, the Foundation grades what can be graded, which is readiness. The scorecard is ready. The grading rubric is ready. The certificates recognizing an A grade have been designed, approved on second review, and archived pending a recipient. By the only measure currently available, the Foundation holds the highest grade in the field, and holds it on behalf of everyone.

6. Publication and Revision

The scorecard is published annually and has been identical in every edition, a consistency few accountability instruments achieve. Members who wish to change their grade are advised that the sole available mechanism is a qualifying vote, and that the Foundation’s model legislation has been ready throughout the period covered by this methodology. The revision history of this brief is maintained below in the interest of the transparency we ask of others.

Revision	Date	Change
1.0	November 2025	Initial issuance.
1.1	November 2025	Recount performed. Membership confirmed at 535.
1.2	November 2025	The word Incomplete capitalized throughout, reflecting its status as a defined term and its projected longevity.

The next scheduled review of this methodology will occur upon the first qualifying vote or at the annual publication date, whichever comes first, and the Foundation’s planning assumes the latter.