The Florida Public Service Commission has rejected Duke Energy Florida's proposed rate structure for data centers and other very large electricity customers. WUSF and the News Service of Florida described the vote as the first test of the state's new data center law. The commission found that Duke's filing left out some customers who qualify as "large load" under the statute. It also found that Duke had not shown its proposal would make each of those customers pay their full cost of service, according to WUSF and the News Service of Florida, which published the report on Nov. 4. Duke must refile.

The new law "made it clear that large load customers must bear their own full cost of service without shifting those costs to other ratepayers," Commissioner Gabriella Passidomo Smith said, according to WUSF. WUSF also reported that she added that Duke can still serve large data centers while following the law.

The Law Being Tested

The statute is CS/CS/SB 484 (2026), titled "Data Centers." According to the Florida Senate's enrolled bill text and bill page, it takes effect July 1, 2026. A PSC staff memorandum says the governor signed it on May 7, 2026, and identifies it as Chapter 2026-65, Laws of Florida.

The law requires the commission's minimum tariff and service requirements for large-load customers to reasonably ensure that each large-load customer bears its own full cost of service and that this cost is "not shifted to the general body of ratepayers," according to the enrolled text. The enrolled text defines a large load customer as one with an anticipated monthly peak load of 50 megawatts or more, calculated as the highest average load over a 15-minute interval at a single location.

Utility tariffs are not the law's only subject. WUSF reported that SB 484 also allows local governments to sign nondisclosure agreements with technology companies for up to 12 months, and that it reinforces local governments' authority to refuse data centers.

What Duke Proposed

Duke Energy Florida filed its petition on April 22, 2026, in Docket No. 20260064-EI, according to the PSC staff memorandum prepared for the commission's July 7, 2026, agenda. The filing asked for a new Large Load Customer Policy, a Large Load Customer Agreement, and revised contribution-in-aid-of-construction (CIAC) tariffs.

Under Duke's proposal, a large load was a customer with a peak contract demand forecast to be at or above 50 MW at a single location, the staff memo said. Customers already on Duke's system as of Dec. 31, 2025, would not have been subject to the new requirements. The proposal's protections, as staff described them, were:

  • a minimum contract term;
  • minimum monthly bill provisions;
  • security requirements;
  • early termination provisions;
  • a non-refundable system impact fee; and
  • a CIAC provision requiring customers to pay 100% of the estimated costs to extend service in advance.

The staff memo said that, under the proposal, large-load customers would take service under Duke's existing GSD-1 or GSDT-1 rate schedules until a new rate class is established, as anticipated in Duke's next rate case filing.

Utility Dive reported on Aug. 27 that the minimum term of service in Duke's proposal was 20 years. It also reported that Duke Energy Florida was the first investor-owned utility to submit an SB 484 compliance proposal to the commission. According to Utility Dive, Duke told the commission at a hearing that it did not want to set a new rate specific to large-load customers yet, arguing that the provisions of its proposed tariff were sufficient to protect other ratepayers.

The two definitions are worded differently. Duke's filing used peak contract demand at a single location and left out customers already in service by the end of 2025. The statute, according to the enrolled text, uses an anticipated monthly peak load of 50 MW or more. WUSF reported the commission's finding that Duke's proposed tariffs excluded certain large-load customers who would otherwise qualify under the law's definition. That finding deals with this scope question. The sources read for this article do not say which specific customers the commission had in mind.

Who Objected, and How

The staff memo lists the Office of Public Counsel (OPC), Florida Rising, PCS Phosphate White Springs, and the Florida Industrial Power Users Group as participants opposing or responding to Duke's petition; Florida Rising, PCS Phosphate and the power users group were granted intervention subject to proof of standing or stipulations.

OPC and Florida Rising filed a joint motion to dismiss Duke's petition on May 26. PSC staff recommended that the commission deny the motion because material questions of fact remained, according to the memo. The memo is dated June 26, 2026, and was written before any final vote on the tariff.

At the hearing, Public Counsel Walt Trierweiler argued that the proposal did not comply with SB 484's basic provisions, Utility Dive reported. Bradley Marshall, an Earthjustice senior attorney representing Florida Rising, said Duke's proposal "doesn't come close and must be rejected." Utility Dive reported that an attorney for the Florida Industrial Power Users Group argued the opposite, saying the state should not get caught up in a rush to do something about data centers.

The Commission's Reasoning

WUSF reported two grounds for the decision. First, the tariffs excluded certain large-load customers who would otherwise qualify under the statute's definition. Second, Duke did not provide sufficient evidence that its existing rate schedules, together with the proposed contractual and financial protections, would reasonably ensure that each large-load customer bears the full cost of its electric service.

The second ground goes to the center of Duke's approach. Duke had relied on contract terms, including a minimum term, minimum bills, security, early termination provisions and upfront construction payments, with service under existing rate schedules rather than a new rate designed for large loads. WUSF's report describes the finding as one of insufficient evidence on the full-cost standard and does not say the commission barred the approach outright. Commissioner Passidomo Smith's comment, as WUSF reported it, that Duke can still serve large data centers while following the law is consistent with a revised filing rather than a ban on service.

The sources read for this article do not give the vote tally. The commission's written order was also not reviewed.

Why It Matters Beyond Duke

WUSF described the vote as the first test of SB 484, and Utility Dive reported that Duke was the first investor-owned utility to file a compliance proposal. The commission's two stated reasons are coverage that matches the statutory definition and evidence that the full-cost standard is met. For developers planning Florida campuses at 50 MW or above, the outcome means the tariff terms that will govern Duke Energy Florida's service to new large loads are not yet settled.

What Happens Next

Duke Energy Florida must refile its large-load tariff proposal, WUSF reported. The case was docketed as No. 20260064-EI at the Florida Public Service Commission. The sources reviewed for this article do not state a deadline for the refiling or a date for the commission to consider it.

Sources