Florida’s Data Center Electricity Filings: What They Answer and What Remains Unresolved
Examining infrastructure costs, financial guarantees, and potential exposure for Florida ratepayers.
When a hyperscale data center requests electricity, the financial commitment can extend well beyond its monthly power bill. Serving that demand may require new generation, transmission, substations, and other infrastructure.
For existing customers, the concern is straightforward: Who pays if the project is delayed, uses less electricity than expected, or fails?
Florida’s utility filings provide some answers. They also leave questions requiring further evidence, regulatory review, or future agreements.
This analysis examines what the reviewed records establish for FPL, Duke Energy Florida, Tampa Electric, and Florida Public Utilities. Proposed requirements are evaluated as proposals, rather than treated as confirmed protections.
Florida Power & Light (FPL)
What the reviewed records answer
Would a data center pay for infrastructure beyond its electricity consumption?
FPL describes customer responsibility for feasibility studies, new generation needed to serve the project, necessary connection facilities, and customer-owned substations.
Would using less electricity eliminate the customer’s payment obligation?
No. FPL describes minimum billing for reserved capacity, even when that capacity is not fully used.
Does the framework address early departure?
Yes. FPL identifies a minimum 20-year contract and an early termination obligation involving accelerated payment of remaining generation costs.
Are financial guarantees required?
FPL identifies credit and collateral requirements for customers reserving capacity.
Has this framework already received approval?
FPL states that the PSC approved its framework in November 2025. Its October 1, 2026, filing explains the company’s position that the framework satisfies SB 484. Review of compliance with the newer law is a separate question.
What remains unresolved
The identified obligations do not independently demonstrate that every relevant cost will be recovered.
Further examination should establish:
Which generation, transmission, and shared-system costs are assigned to the customer.
How payment obligations change when construction costs increase.
Whether minimum payments cover continuing costs during prolonged underuse.
Whether collateral remains sufficient and collectible following default.
The central question is whether payments and financial backing cover the full exposure created by the project.
Duke Energy Florida
What the reviewed records answer
Which electricity rates would initially apply?
Duke’s April 22, 2026, proposal in Docket 20260064-EI would initially use existing GSD-1 or GSDT-1 rates. Duke anticipates proposing a new large-load rate schedule in its next rate case.
Would qualifying customers have additional contractual obligations?
Yes. The proposal includes a Large Load Customer Policy and customer agreement.
What payment and security provisions are identified?
PSC staff describes minimum contract and billing requirements, financial security, early termination provisions, a nonrefundable system-impact fee, and advance payment of estimated service-extension costs.
What remains unresolved
The central dispute is whether existing rates, combined with those additional obligations, recover the full cost of serving qualifying customers.
The Office of Public Counsel and Florida Rising challenged the proposal’s compliance with SB 484, including reliance on existing rates and its treatment of firm load. PSC staff identified material factual questions requiring examination through a hearing.
Construction payments and contract requirements do not, on their own, establish that the underlying rates adequately recover service costs.
Final approval on the merits was not established in the records reviewed.
Tampa Electric Company (TECO)
What the reviewed records answer
How would infrastructure costs be collected?
TECO’s September 30, 2026, proposal in Docket 20260146-EI would recover incremental generation and transmission costs through tariff charges. Applicable incremental distribution and other infrastructure costs would be paid upfront through contributions in aid of construction, or CIAC.
Would construction payments be adjusted to actual costs?
Yes. The proposal provides for reconciliation, with refunds or additional payments for differences between estimated and actual construction costs.
Is there a specific financial-security formula?
Yes. The proposed requirement is:
$2 million per contracted megawatt for non-investment-grade customers.
Half that amount for investment-grade customers or qualifying protective insurance arrangements.
For a 100 MW customer, those formulas produce security requirements of $200 million or $100 million, depending on the applicable category.
What forms of security are permitted?
The proposal identifies cash, letters of credit, investment-grade guarantees, insurance, and other TECO-accepted security.
What remains unresolved
The formula establishes how security would be calculated. Its adequacy requires comparison with the liabilities it covers.
Further analysis should establish:
The outstanding financial exposure during construction and operation.
Which obligations can be satisfied from the security.
How collection would work under each permitted instrument.
What happens if the customer cannot pay additional construction costs.
Whether continuing tariff payments recover relevant costs when demand falls short.
A specific collateral amount provides a measurable requirement. Ratepayer protection depends on how that amount compares with recoverable obligations and potential losses.
LLCS-1 and LLCS-2 remain proposed schedules in the records reviewed; final approval was not verified.
Florida Public Utilities (FPUC)
What the reviewed records answer
Why does the proposal lack a standard project rate?
FPUC’s October 1, 2026, petition in Docket 20260148-EI states that it has no qualifying existing customers or qualifying prospective-customer inquiries. It therefore lacks the project information needed to calculate appropriate rates.
Who would pay for preliminary work?
The proposed approach assigns applicable studies and pre-service expenses to the customer. These include engineering, system impacts, transmission, purchased power, metering, legal, regulatory, and cost-of-service work.
How would infrastructure responsibilities and rates be established?
Through a customer-specific Large Load Service Agreement, or LLSA.
Would that agreement require regulatory approval?
FPUC proposes submitting each agreement for PSC approval before service begins.
Is there a fixed collateral formula?
The proposed tariff does not establish a fixed formula comparable to TECO’s. Financial guarantees and specific security terms would be established in the individual agreement.
What remains unresolved
Future agreements would need to supply project-specific answers concerning:
Rates and minimum payments.
Infrastructure ownership and construction obligations.
Security amounts and permitted instruments.
Contract duration and early termination.
Responsibility for costs after cancellation, downsizing, or default.
The filing establishes a proposed process for developing those terms. It does not yet establish the financial requirements for an actual project.
Final PSC approval was not verified in the records reviewed.
What these answers mean for ratepayers
The filings establish different parts of the financial arrangement.
FPL identifies obligations within an existing framework. Duke proposes contractual requirements alongside existing rates. TECO specifies cost-recovery mechanisms and a collateral formula. FPUC places project-specific financial terms in future agreements.
The remaining work is to connect those requirements to realistic project outcomes.
If a campus opens late, which payments begin before electricity consumption reaches its forecast? If only part of the project is built, which infrastructure commitments remain? If the customer defaults, what funds can actually be collected?
An unresolved question does not automatically establish a defect. It identifies where additional evidence or analysis is needed.
Where that examination reveals a gap, recommendations should identify the specific change required, whether through tariff conditions, customer agreements, regulatory policy, or legislation.
Ratepayers need to know what the customer owes, what can actually be collected, and whether any remaining costs could become their responsibility.
This information is based on records reviewed through October 2026, including tariff submissions by Florida’s investor-owned electric utilities under review by the Florida Public Service Commission.