Duke Energy Florida's large-load tariff was the first to reach Florida regulators under the state's new data center law. According to coverage of a staff memo, it now faces a recommendation that it be sent back. MGrid reported that Florida Public Service Commission staff recommended on Oct. 22, 2026 that the commission deny the proposal as filed and give the utility leave to refile. MGrid reported the commission vote for Nov. 3 in Tallahassee.

The case is Docket No. 20260064-EI. It is an early test of how Florida regulators will read CS/CS/SB 484, the 2026 data centers bill, which Utility Dive reported was signed in May. The dispute comes down to one question: does a tariff that sets contract terms for very large customers, but no rate, satisfy the statute?

DataCenterFeed has not reviewed the staff recommendation itself. Everything below about what staff concluded comes from MGrid's Oct. 24 report.

What the Law Requires

According to the Florida Senate's enrolled bill text, SB 484 requires public utilities to set minimum tariff and service requirements for large load customers. The enrolled text defines a large load customer as one with an anticipated monthly peak load of 50 megawatts or more. Peak load is calculated as the highest average load over a 15-minute interval.

Duke's post-hearing brief says the statute, codified as Fla. Stat. 366.043 (2026), requires each public utility to file a compliant large-load tariff by Oct. 1, 2026. Utility Dive reported that Duke was the first investor-owned utility in the state to submit its compliance proposal. MGrid reported that Tampa Electric filed its own large-load tariff at the end of September.

What Duke Proposed

Duke Energy Florida filed its petition on April 22, 2026 (document 02327-2026). Deputy General Counsel Dianne Triplett signed it, and it asked for a limited proceeding to approve a large load tariff. The petition and its proposed tariff sheets, together with Duke's Sept. 15 post-hearing brief, describe these terms:

  • Applicability: lowered from 100 MW to 50 MW of firm load at a single location, including co-located load (petition).
  • Contract term: a minimum term of 20 years, up from 15 (petition).
  • Minimum demand: 75% to 85% of contract capacity, plus a minimum load factor of no less than 60% (petition and brief).
  • Study fee: a non-refundable $150,000 system impact study fee, with another $150,000 for any necessary updates (petition).
  • Exit costs: a termination fee raised to three years of minimum monthly bills plus the net book value of new facilities (petition and brief).
  • Other provisions: an exclusion for foreign entities as defined in Fla. Stat. 366.043(2)(c), and a requirement that customers advance costs through a contribution in aid of construction (CIAC), per the petition and Utility Dive.

The tariff does not include a rate. In its brief, Duke argues that its 2024 settlement freezes base rates. That settlement was approved in Order No. PSC-2024-0472-AS-EI in Docket 20240025-EI. Duke says it will file a large-load-specific rate schedule to take effect Jan. 1, 2028, and it asks the commission to approve the proposed tariffs without modification.

The August Hearing

Utility Dive reported on the Tuesday hearing before the commission, which MGrid dates to Aug. 25. Duke's position drew sharp opposition. Public Counsel Walt Trierweiler said the proposal "doesn't attempt to comply with the most basic provisions of SB 484." Bradley Marshall, an Earthjustice attorney representing Florida Rising, said it "doesn't come close and must be rejected."

Triplett, arguing for Duke, said "no party has identified a mechanism by which approval of this tariff could increase any customer rates before the end of 2027." John Moyle, attorney for the Florida Industrial Power Users Group, argued the other side, according to Utility Dive. Utility Dive also reported that a commission attorney, Major Ryan Thompson, noted in questioning a Duke witness that the 2024 settlement contains a clause allowing Duke to "modify or change its base rates in light of a government imposition." The Duke witness said he was aware of the clause but was not sure what would cause the exception to apply.

What Staff Concluded, According to MGrid

MGrid reported that staff rejected the argument that the settlement freeze settles the matter. Staff wrote that the freeze "only addresses half of the statute." In MGrid's account, the other half, that each large load customer bears its own full cost of service, "remains an open question," and Duke's filing sets no rate.

MGrid said staff raised several other objections:

  • Firm service only. The tariff applies only to customers who request firm service. Staff wrote that "nothing in the statute supports any such distinction."
  • Section 13.06. Staff objected to a provision that would let Duke negotiate non-material contract terms without commission review.
  • Security. Staff objected to the tariff's formula for customer security and recommended two months of minimum bills instead.

MGrid also cited record evidence on how much large load Duke can serve now. A Duke witness testified that the utility can serve one 55 MW customer before the settlement expires. In discovery Duke reported system impact study requests from 13 customers above 50 MW, and the smallest is 160 MW. Its load hosting analysis shows substations and lines able to absorb up to 200 MW. Two existing customers above 50 MW would be grandfathered.

Staff did not offer only a denial, according to MGrid. Their alternative would let commissioners approve the cost-recovery framework as an interim step while widening its applicability to every customer that meets the statutory definition.

The docket has drawn heavy public attention. MGrid reported more than 4,400 public comments filed by Oct. 20.

Why It Matters Beyond Duke

The timing gap is central. Under the statute, a utility had to file a compliant tariff by Oct. 1, 2026. Duke says its large-load rate schedule would take effect Jan. 1, 2028, which is 15 months after that deadline. Staff, the Office of Public Counsel and Florida Rising each objected to that approach, according to MGrid and Utility Dive. Duke's brief, for its part, relies on the commission-approved 2024 settlement and its base rate freeze.

The record evidence MGrid described shows the scale gap. The study requests in Duke's queue start at 160 MW, about three times the 55 MW a Duke witness said the utility can serve before the settlement expires. Its hosting analysis shows capacity of up to 200 MW. The statute's threshold is 50 MW. MGrid reported that Tampa Electric filed its own large-load tariff, with a separate data center class, at the end of September, and described the Duke vote as setting the template for that case.

What Happens Next

MGrid reported that the commission will take up the staff recommendation at its Nov. 3, 2026 agenda conference in Tallahassee, as Item 3. Commissioners will vote on staff's primary recommendation to deny the tariff as filed, or on the staff alternative of interim approval with wider applicability. Either way, MGrid reported, Duke would have 10 business days after the order to refile.

Sources