FL SB 484 / signed
Governor Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill 484 on May 7 in Lakeland; effective July 1, 2026, the bill (a) requires the Florida Public Service Commission to develop tariffs and service requirements ensuring each 'large load customer' (≥50 MW anticipated monthly peak demand at a single location, calculated as the highest 15-minute average load) bears its own full cost of service for connection and incremental transmission/generation expense, (b) reinforces local-government authority to refuse data center permits while authorizing 12-month NDAs between local governments and applicants, and (c) closes the load-splitting loophole by aggregating colocation customers at the same location toward the 50 MW threshold
SB 484 (sponsored by Sen. Bryan Ávila with companion in the Florida House) cleared both chambers earlier in the 2026 session and was signed at a Lakeland press conference May 7 alongside several other technology-related bills. The statute directs the Florida PSC to develop a tariff and service-requirement regime that 'reasonably ensures' any large load customer (statutorily defined as a single-location customer with anticipated monthly peak demand of 50 MW or more, with the 15-minute interval calculation method written into the bill) bears its own full cost of service — covering both the connection cost (hookup, dedicated infrastructure) and the system-incremental cost (transmission upgrades, generation capacity additions). The statute explicitly aggregates colocation arrangements at the same location toward the threshold so a developer cannot split a 75 MW campus into three 25 MW interconnections to fall under the trigger. Local-government provisions (a) reinforce that municipalities and counties have unilateral authority to refuse to permit data centers in their jurisdictions and (b) authorize those same local governments to enter into non-disclosure agreements with applicants for up to 12 months. DeSantis described the bill at signing as both 'watered down' from the original filed version and 'a pretty strong first step,' framing the policy intent as 'Floridians should not pay one more red cent for electricity to subsidize tech companies' data center operations.' Effective date: July 1, 2026.
WFSU / Florida Politics / Tallahassee Reports / Florida Senate (SB 484 bill text) ↗
Why it matters
Four product-relevant items, layered. (1) This is the first US *state-level statute* (not utility tariff filing, not commission-approved rate schedule) putting the 'large load = own cost of service' principle into binding law. The ≥50 MW threshold is meaningfully lower than the ≥100 MW thresholds Ohio AEP and Indiana NIPSCO have used in their tariff filings, so Florida captures a much wider tail of mid-size data-center proposals — anything roughly 17 MW IT load and up (figuring 50 MW total facility = ~17 MW IT × ~3x for cooling/power overhead at modern PUE) is now in scope. Cliff's regulatory-knowledge graph needs Florida added to the 'large load tariff' state cluster (currently OH, IN, OK, MD-pending, VA-debating) at a *statutory* level rather than a tariff-filing level — the legal hierarchy matters because statute is much harder to undo than a rate schedule and applies to every Florida-regulated utility (FPL, Duke FL, Tampa Electric, Gulf Power) automatically. (2) The July 1 effective date stacks on top of the Virginia DEQ APG-576 July 1 cutoff covered yesterday, meaning two separate state regulatory regimes flip on the same day across two of the largest data-center markets. The submission-validator product needs a *Florida tariff applicability* check by August 1 (after PSC promulgates the implementing tariff over the summer) — does this site's anticipated peak demand trigger the 50 MW threshold, has any colocation arrangement at the same site been disclosed, and what's the corresponding cost-of-service exposure? Florida data-center pipeline is real and growing — the JEA / Jacksonville cluster, the Lakeland campus inventory near Polk County, and Miami-area colocation are all potentially in scope. (3) The 12-month NDA authorization is structurally interesting in two directions. Pro-applicant: it gives developers the political cover Texas Ch. 313 used to provide for negotiated abatement deals — a county can negotiate substantively without exposure to immediate public comment cycles. Anti-applicant: it lengthens the 'true filing date' uncertainty for any site under NDA, since the applicant's regulatory clock doesn't start ticking publicly until the NDA expires or is voluntarily released. Cliff's submission-readiness product should add an 'NDA-status' input to the Florida site model. (4) DeSantis's 'watered down' framing matters for forecasting — the original SB 484 was more restrictive (broader local authority, lower MW threshold under one draft, and stricter PSC mandates). The signed version's compromises were largely industry-driven (Florida Internet & Television Association, Data Center Coalition, big-tech direct lobbying), which means a 2027 follow-on session targeting the gaps — particularly the NDA shield and the 50 MW threshold — is now a high-probability event. Florida statutory regime is unstable in the direction of *more* restriction, not less, and Cliff's customers should plan for a 2027 SB 484 amendment cycle.