Four Florida investor-owned utilities must file a large-load tariff for Commission approval by October 1, 2026 under section 366.043, Florida Statutes. This is the framework I will read those filings against, published before they exist so the criteria are on the record before anyone knows the answers.
Seven tests, each tied to the subsection it reads. Four findings per test. One gate, one total, three counts. It is not a prediction of what the Commission will do and it takes no view on the size of the data center buildout. It is about who pays.
Writing on deadline? Call 850.973.7687 or email mmcnees@fsu.edu.
Go straight to the rubricSeven tests, four filings, scored as you go.
A structured reading of the four large-load filings due October 1, 2026, against one statute and one existing , applied the same way to each filing. It is a compliance reading because the statute asks for compliance: section 366.043(8) requires each public utility to file a tariff that complies with this section. The question is whether the filed words satisfy the statute, requirement by requirement.
The criteria are published before the filings exist, so they are on the record before anyone knows the answers. It is not a prediction of what the Florida Public Service Commission will do, a forecast about the size of the data center buildout, or an environmental argument. It is about .
Standing. I am not a party to these . The Office of Public Counsel is, and its review is the one that carries legal weight. This is an outside academic reading. My only filing on the subject is a public comment in Docket 20260064-EI, Document No. 04900-2026.
October 4, 2026: Duke reading added. Duke filed no new tariff by October 1 and relies on its petition pending in Docket 20260064-EI, so that petition is the instrument read, as test zero provides. The criteria did not change. The Duke column of the matrix now opens on the published reading, and the reading is below, with the positions of the Office of Public Counsel and Florida Rising from their post-hearing briefs.
October 2, 2026: readings added. The readings of the three filings that arrived by October 1 are below and in the matrix. The criteria did not change. Two presentation changes, both dated here. The comparison column that held FPL's existing LLCS tariff is retired, because on October 1 FPL filed that same tariff as its compliance tariff, so its reading now sits in the FPL column. And the last count row is relabeled "optional tools met," which is what it always counted: met counts, partially met does not.
Amended September 24, 2026. Two further changes, made before any filing exists. First, the gate now has three readings: clears; shortfall to defend, where any required test reads partially met; and misses a required test, where any reads not met. Section 366.043(3)(a) says the requirements must reasonably ensure full cost of service, so a requirement addressed only in part is a shortfall the filing has to justify, not half of a pass. The total and its arithmetic are unchanged. Second, where a finding depends on how a cost is measured, at Tests 2, 3, 4 and 5, the reading marks it stated by the utility, not verified, names the measurement choices likely to be disputed, and adds other parties' positions, cited to their filings, as the record develops. A met finding records what the filed words say, not agreement with the utility's own claim of compliance. How that works. The September 18 version remains readable in the site's public history.
Amended September 18, 2026. The criteria were changed before any filing exists, and the change is dated so it stays on the record ahead of the filings it applies to. Four changes. A rule for confidential treatment, including what counts as a publicly stated rate. At Test 6, silence now reads met, because 366.043(6) prohibits hindering curtailment rather than requiring a curtailment clause. The deferred count is of six, not seven, because test zero and Test 7 have no deferred finding. And two labels are corrected: the tests number seven, and the five tests the total runs on are named. Two clarifications also appear, at Test 2 and Test 5. The September 15 version remains readable in the site's public history.
Every term that needs one is defined where it first appears, and the glossary at the end defines all of them. On the web version, clicking a term opens its definition without leaving the page. The matrix is fillable: download the PDF and mark your own readings in it as the filings land.
Section 366.043 applies to a public utility as defined in section 366.02, which excludes rural electric cooperatives and municipal utilities. Four must file by October 1: Florida Power & Light, Duke Energy Florida, Tampa Electric, and Florida Public Utilities.
| Utility type (Florida PSC, customers as of Dec. 31, 2024) | Accounts |
|---|---|
| Investor-owned (covered by the statute) | 8,898,282 |
| Municipal (not covered) | 1,624,182 |
| Rural electric cooperative (not covered) | 1,373,691 |
| Total | 11,896,155 |
| Outside the statute | 2,997,873 (25.20 percent) |
Source: Florida Public Service Commission, Statistics of the Florida Electric Utility Industry 2024, published October 2025, Table 32, printed page 47. These are accounts, not population. Florida Public Utilities serves 33,188 of the investor-owned accounts; the statute applies to it on the same terms as to the other three. FPSC report
SB 484 was signed May 7, 2026 as Chapter 2026-65, Laws of Florida, and took effect July 1, 2026. It creates section 366.043.
Source: enrolled text of CS/CS/SB 484 and the chapter law. Every subsection cited in this document was read in that text. Enrolled text Chapter law
Who is covered, 366.043(2)(d). A has an anticipated monthly peak load of 50 megawatts or more, measured as the highest average over a 15-minute interval at a single location. tenants at one location count together, meaning separate tenants sharing one site. Load spread across several locations under one owner does not. Section 366.043(4) bars splitting a load at one location to stay under the threshold.
Two standards in one paragraph, 366.043(3)(a). The first sentence says the tariff and service requirements must reasonably ensure that each large load customer bears its own full and that such cost is not shifted to the , listing connection, incremental transmission, , other infrastructure, operations and maintenance, and any other costs required to serve. The last sentence is unqualified: the risk of nonpayment of such costs may not be borne by the general body of ratepayers. A filing can be defensible under the first sentence and still fail the second.
A menu, not a mandate, 366.043(5). The Commission may approve tariffs that include , money paid up front toward construction; including minimum demand charges, priced on the largest amount of power drawn at once; incremental generation charges; ; minimum , a measure of how steadily a customer draws power; provisions, under which the customer pays for a minimum quantity whether or not it uses it; and at (5)(g) including early termination fees. A utility can decline every tool on the list and still owe the result that (3)(a) requires.
Also in the section. Nothing may hinder for grid stability or emergencies, 366.043(6). To curtail is to require a customer to cut back or stop drawing power, under terms the customer agreed to in advance. Foreign-entity screening and a service prohibition, 366.043(3)(b) and (7). The rate provisions are technology-neutral: the phrase data center does not appear in section 366.043.
| Finding | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Met | The filed language satisfies the requirement on its face, without a later proceeding. |
| Partially met | Some elements addressed, others absent. |
| Not met | The requirement is not addressed in the filed language. |
| Deferred | The filing acknowledges the requirement and assigns its resolution to a future proceeding. |
Silence is not met, not deferred, except at Test 6, explained below. Deferred requires the filing to say the requirement is coming later. And partially met on a required test does not miss the below, because the filing addressed the requirement rather than ignored it. It does not clear the gate either: the gate reads shortfall to defend. Only not met misses it.
Two prohibitions read differently. Test 6 reads a prohibition. Section 366.043(6) says no contract, service requirement or utility policy may hinder curtailment. It does not require a curtailment clause. So at Test 6, silence reads met, and only filed language that hinders curtailment reads not met. Anti-splitting at 366.043(4) is also a prohibition, and it is reported without scoring for the same reason: the absence of a clause is not a miss where the statute requires none. Everywhere else, silence is not met.
A reading of the filed words cannot tell whether a charge actually recovers the cost it names, because that depends on how the cost is measured, and measurement is what the parties will contest. So at Tests 2, 3, 4 and 5, wherever a finding turns on a cost figure or a cost method, the written reading marks it stated by the utility, not verified, and names the measurement choices likely to be disputed, such as how incremental generation is priced or how the new load affects the cost of running the rest of the system. A met finding at those tests records what the filed words say. It is not agreement with the utility's own claim that its filing complies. On October 1 and 2 only the utility's filing exists, so the first readings do not guess how other parties will score it. As intervening parties file testimony, each reading adds their positions, cited to their filings, so the reading grows with the record rather than resting on the utility's word alone.
A filing may redact cost studies, load forecasts, contract terms, supporting workpapers, and customer or counterparty identities without penalty, where those materials are redacted under a pending request or a granted claim of confidential treatment. This framework does not second-guess the Commission's confidentiality rulings.
Sealed support is deferred. Sealed silence is not. Where the public filing addresses a required test and only the material supporting it is confidential, the finding is deferred, and the written reading notes that the support is confidential, so it is not mistaken for a requirement assigned to a future proceeding. Where the public filing is silent on the requirement, the finding is not met, whatever may sit under seal. A requirement cannot move from not met to deferred by sealing the evidence.
What counts as a stated rate. Section 366.043(8) requires a tariff filed for Commission approval, and this framework reads a as the published terms and prices at which a class of customers is served. This reading follows the Commission’s own rule, which lists rate schedules among a tariff’s contents and defines a rate schedule as the rate or charge for a classification of service (Rule 25-9.002(5) and (8), F.A.C.). It does not require a new rate schedule. An existing published rate schedule that the filing designates for large-load service is a publicly stated rate. Whether that rate recovers the large load’s cost of service is scored at Tests 1 and 2, not here. A rate is publicly stated when the public filing gives either the price or the formula that produces it. A formula whose inputs are confidential is a stated rate with confidential support, read under the paragraph above. A charge set only in a confidential service agreement, with neither price nor formula in the public filing, is not a stated rate.
How it scores at test zero. Where no charge in the filing is publicly stated, no publicly filed tariff exists for scoring purposes, and test zero reads not met. Where some charges are stated and others are withheld, test zero reads partially met, and each cost category priced only by a withheld charge is recorded as unassigned in the Test 2 grid. That a tariff must state its price rather than refer to a confidential agreement is a construction of 366.043(8), not a settled one. Whether a utility may serve a statutory large load customer through contract terms is contested in Docket 20260064-EI, as Test 1 notes.
Test 5 keeps its own rule. It is optional and asks specifically whether the incremental generation basis can be checked, so partly confidential reads partially met there, as stated at Test 5. The deferral above applies to required tests only.
This is a reading of what the public record contains, not a challenge to the grant of confidential treatment.
No test is weighted above another, because the statute does not rank its own requirements. What the statute does rank is , and that is the only distinction the scoring uses.
The statute makes that distinction plainly. Section 366.043(8) and section 366.043(3)(a) are required: the utility shall file, the requirements must reasonably ensure full cost of service, and the risk of nonpayment may not be borne by the general body of ratepayers. Subsection (5) is optional: the Commission may approve the listed tools, and a utility can decline every one of them. So each test is marked required or optional in the matrix, according to the provision it reads.
. A percentage of the five required tariff standards a filing satisfies , each weighted equally: test zero and Tests 1, 2, 3 and 6. Test 7 is required too, but it reaches the gate only, so it is not among the five. It is called a total rather than a score because it counts what the filed words satisfy; it does not weigh how much any one requirement matters. Met scores 1.0. Partially met and deferred each score 0.5, because both mean the requirement was addressed but not satisfied on its face, which is better than silence and worse than done. Not met scores 0. Five required tests, so the total is multiplied by 20. The two optional tests are excluded: a utility may lawfully decline every tool at subsection (5), and including them would score a lawful choice as a deficiency.
The gate overrides the total. A filing with any required test reading not met is reported as missing a required element on the face of the filing, regardless of the percentage, so no filing can offset a miss with good marks elsewhere. A filing with no required test reading not met, but any reading partially met, is reported as a shortfall to defend: section 366.043(3)(a) says the requirements must reasonably ensure full cost of service, so a requirement addressed only in part is something the filing has to justify, not half of a pass. The total is still reported, because how far short it falls is itself informative. This is a reading of the filed words. It is not a finding the Commission has made or will make; 366.043(3)(a) asks the Commission to judge what reasonably ensures full cost of service, and that judgment belongs to a proceeding.
Reported with the total, never folded into it:
Two things the arithmetic does on purpose. Five partially met readings total 50 percent with the gate reading shortfall to defend, and one not met among four met readings misses the gate at 80 percent. That is the design: a filing that addresses every requirement imperfectly ranks above one that is silent on any of them. And deferred scores the same 0.5 as partially met, so a filing that names a requirement and parks the arithmetic in a future docket scores better than silence and worse than a stated charge mechanism. A reader who thinks a promise should score lower than half credit can see exactly where that judgment sits.
A worked example, using the one tariff that already exists. FPL's LLCS schedules apply only to new or incremental load of 50 MW or more and a load factor of 85 percent or higher, while the statute sets no load factor condition and no new-load limit, so a customer the statute covers can be served outside the tariff. Test 1 reads not met. Were that an October 1 filing, the gate would read missed and the arithmetic on the remaining tests would not change the headline.
A second case worth naming in advance. A letter asserting that existing tariffs already comply arrives on time but files no tariff for approval, so test zero reads partially met. The gate reads shortfall to defend rather than a miss, the total is capped at 90 percent before any other test is read, and tests 1 through 7 are then applied to whichever existing tariff the letter points to.
This sits ahead of the seven tests because everything after it assumes a filing to read. It has three outcomes, not two.
Findings for test zero.
A filing that already exists. Duke Energy Florida has a large-load tariff petition pending in Docket 20260064-EI, heard and briefed before October 1. On October 1 the question for Duke is what arrived: a new tariff filed for approval under 366.043(8), a letter pointing to the pending petition, or nothing. Whatever arrives is recorded with its docket and document number. If the pending petition is the instrument Duke relies on, tests 1 through 7 are applied to that instrument, not waived because it predates the deadline. A new October 1 filing supersedes it for scoring.
What the statute provides in the second and third cases. Section 366.043(8) states the obligation and carries no penalty of its own. Section 366.095 lets the Commission penalize an entity found to have refused to comply with or willfully violated any provision of chapter 366, up to $5,000 per offense, each day a separate offense; it requires a finding and is discretionary. Section 366.06(2) lets the Commission act upon its own motion where rates or practices are unjust or in violation of law. Recorded for each utility: what arrived, its document number, and its date.
Statutory hook. 366.043(2)(d), read against the tariff's applicability clause.
Question. Does the tariff apply to every customer the statute defines as a large load customer, or do added eligibility conditions narrow it? Watch for floors, meaning a minimum steadiness of draw; new-load-only limits; optional election structures; thresholds measured other than as a 15-minute peak at one location; and colocation tenants not aggregated.
Two things to say about this test. First, whether a utility may serve a statutory large load customer under a general schedule with added contract terms, rather than under a separate tariff, is contested in Docket 20260064-EI. The not met standard above takes the reading that a complying tariff must reach every customer the statute defines; that is a construction of 366.043(8), not a settled one. Second, a load factor used inside a tariff to price steadiness, which 366.043(5)(e) allows, is not a coverage defect. A load factor used as an eligibility floor that leaves a 50 MW customer outside the tariff is.
Recorded for each filing: the applicability language, verbatim, with sheet number.
Statutory hook. 366.043(3)(a), first sentence: the requirements must reasonably ensure that each large load customer bears its own full cost of service. Reasonably ensure is a standard, not a checklist, which is why partially met and deferred exist in this test.
Question. Does the tariff assign each listed category to the large load customer: connection, incremental transmission, incremental generation, other infrastructure, operations and maintenance, and any other costs required to serve? The list is open-ended, so whether the tariff has a catch-all is itself part of the test.
One assigned category is enough to move this test from not met to partially met. That is deliberate: reasonably ensure is a standard, and a filing that prices one category has addressed the requirement, however thinly. The grid recorded below shows exactly how many categories are assigned, so a thin partially met is visible rather than hidden in the half credit.
Recorded for each filing: a grid, one row per cost category, one column per utility.
Statutory hook. 366.043(3)(a), last sentence. Tools at (5)(a) and (5)(d).
Question. Which does the filing use, and are they sized to the utility's committed investment or only to a few months of billing?
Recorded for each filing: instrument type, sizing formula, and the investment it sits against.
Statutory hook. 366.043(3)(a) addresses nonpayment. Durability tools at (5)(f) and (5)(g) are optional.
Question. Nonpayment is not the same event as termination, expiry, or non-renewal. A customer can pay every invoice and still leave. If a utility builds capacity for a load that later leaves, does the tariff say who carries the cost of what remains, the ? The one yes-or-no check: did the filing include an early termination charge under (5)(g)?
The met standard here is a durability test, not a statutory minimum. The statute does not require a term, a take-or-pay level or a termination charge; it allows them. A short exit fee with no stated basis reads partially met on this test and is still lawful. The reason the test exists is that the first sentence of 366.043(3)(a) reaches any other costs required to serve, and a plant built for a customer who pays every bill and then leaves is a cost that lands on someone. The statute puts the tools for that in the optional list, so the test is optional and the risk is named here.
Recorded for each filing: term, take-or-pay level, and whether the termination charge is a formula or a negotiated amount.
Statutory hook. 366.043(3)(a) lists incremental generation among the costs the customer bears. 366.043(5)(c) authorizes an incremental generation charge. Neither says how that cost is measured.
Question. Does the filing state how the charge is calculated, from a basis someone outside the utility can check, and is the underlying calculation filed or confidential?
Confidential cost models are ordinary at the Commission. Reading partly confidential as partially met is a transparency preference, stated as such: a charge nobody outside the utility can check is harder to call cost of service on its face.
Recorded for each filing: the calculation language, verbatim, and whether it is filed or confidential.
Statutory hook. 366.043(6), which reaches contracts, service requirements, and utility policies, not just the tariff sheet.
Question. Do guarantees, liability terms, or performance credits make costly or conditional?
Recorded for each filing: the curtailment clause and any language that interacts with it.
Statutory hook. 366.043(3)(b). The requirements must include provisions reasonably designed to prevent service to a customer that would otherwise be a large load customer if that customer is a foreign entity.
Question. Are such provisions in the filed tariff or not. This is a required element, so a filing silent on it misses the gate. It is outside the cost question this framework exists to ask, so it is read as present or absent, with no judgment on design, and it does not enter the total.
Recorded for each filing: the screening clause, verbatim, with sheet number.
Reported without scoring: the foreign-entity service prohibition at 366.043(7), which binds the utility rather than the tariff; anti-splitting at 366.043(4), which is a prohibition on the customer and not a required tariff clause, so its absence from a tariff is not a miss; and colocation aggregation, 366.043(2)(d).
Florida already has one approved large-load tariff: Florida Power & Light's Large-Load Contract Service schedules, LLCS-1 at Sheet No. 8.950 and LLCS-2 at Sheet No. 8.953, effective January 1, 2026, from the 2025 rate settlement in Docket 20250011-EI. The Commission voted to approve the settlement November 20, 2025, and issued Order No. PSC-2026-0022-S-EI on January 22, 2026.
Paragraph 6 of the settlement approved the LLCS tariffs as filed with modifications. Those modifications are the terms that can be checked today:
The tariff sheets set a minimum term of not less than 20 years from the in-service date, including the load ramp period, and require two years' written notice to terminate (FPL tariff Sheets 8.951 and 8.954, read September 20, 2026). The sheets impose early termination charges and refer the amount to the LLCS Service Agreement, which is itself a tariff form on file with the Commission. That agreement sets the Exit Fee at the net present value of the accelerated payment of the Incremental Generation Charges the customer would have paid over the rest of the minimum term, calculated at the charges in effect at termination (LLCS Service Agreement, Section 4.3.2, FPL tariff Sheet No. 9.965, read September 20, 2026). The fee is measured by the Incremental Generation Charge alone, not the full bill.
Applied to Test 1, the benchmark reads not met. The statute defines a large load customer by anticipated monthly peak of 50 MW at a single location. It sets no load factor condition and no new-load limit. A customer the statute covers, at 50 MW with an 80 percent load factor, can be served outside the LLCS tariff.
Every date in the paragraph above comes before SB 484 was signed. A tariff written before the statute existed was not written against its required elements, so it is read element by element like the others rather than presumed to comply. It was also a partial settlement. The signatories are listed at footnote 2 of Order No. PSC-2026-0117-FOF-EI (Document No. 02414-2026); the Office of Public Counsel did not sign, and under paragraph 31 no signatory may seek appellate review of the approving order.
Source: 2025 Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, Docket No. 20250011-EI, dated August 20, 2025, filed as exhibit 99 to a Form 8-K, paragraphs 6 and 31; Order No. PSC-2026-0022-S-EI. Settlement, SEC EDGAR Approving order
October 1, 2026. FPL filed these LLCS tariffs, unchanged, as its compliance tariff under 366.043(8), Docket 20260149-EI. The Test 1 reading above, published in September, is the reading applied to that filing. FPL's reading is below.
In 2013 and 2014 two aluminum smelters on the Big Rivers Electric system in Kentucky moved off their cost-based contracts. Industrial customers asked the Kentucky Public Service Commission to charge the departing load for the capacity built to serve it. The Commission declined, Case No. 2013-00221 (August 14, 2013) and Case No. 2013-00413 (January 30, 2014). The Commission-approved 2009 contracts carried a twelve-month termination notice and no provision imposing an exit fee, and the Commission would not read one in afterward.
The costs did not disappear. In Case No. 2020-00064 (June 25, 2020), the Commission authorized recovery of regulatory assets whose stated balances total approximately $371.9 million, plus decommissioning costs not yet determined, over a period no longer than through December 31, 2043, with an annual application required each February. At page 23 of that order, in its own findings: if BREC's history informs the Commission of nothing else, it is LIC customers that may come and go based on a number of factors; and the rural class is always left holding the bag. A term that is not in the agreement at signing may not be available later.
Source: Kentucky Public Service Commission orders in Case Nos. 2013-00221, 2013-00413 and 2020-00064. 2013-00221 2013-00413 2020-00064
The deliverable is one matrix, published October 1 and 2 as the filings land. Test zero and the seven tests are the rows, each marked required or optional. The four filings are the columns. One finding per cell, from the four values above. The last five rows carry the gate, the total, and the three counts.
Each row carries the statutory requirement it reads, so the thing being scored sits next to the finding rather than somewhere else in the document. Until October 1 a second reference column held FPL's existing LLCS tariff, for comparison. On October 1 FPL filed that tariff as its compliance tariff, so the comparison column is retired and the FPL column carries the reading of the filing itself.
| Test, and what the statute requires | Required or optional | FPLDocket 20260149-EI | DukeDocket 20260064-EI | TECODocket 20260146-EI | Florida Public UtilitiesDocket 20260148-EI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test zero. Complying tariff filed366.043(8). File a tariff that complies with this section, for Commission approval, no later than October 1, 2026. | Required | ||||
| 1. Coverage matches the definition366.043(2)(d). Reach every customer with an anticipated monthly peak of 50 MW or more, highest 15-minute average, at a single location. | Required | ||||
| 2. Cost categories assigned366.043(3)(a), first sentence. Assign the customer its full cost of service: connection, incremental transmission, incremental generation, other infrastructure, operations and maintenance, and any other costs required to serve. | Required | ||||
| 3. Nonpayment risk off ratepayers366.043(3)(a), last sentence. The risk of nonpayment may not be borne by the general body of ratepayers. Unqualified. | Required | ||||
| 4. Asset when the load leaves366.043(5)(f) and (5)(g). Nothing is required. The Commission may approve minimum terms and early termination fees. The required result at (3)(a) still has to be reached by some route. | Optional | ||||
| 5. Incremental generation basis stated366.043(5)(c). Nothing is required. The Commission may approve an incremental generation charge. The statute does not say how that cost is measured. | Optional | ||||
| 6. Curtailment unhindered366.043(6). No contract, service requirement or utility policy may hinder curtailment for grid stability or emergencies. | Required | ||||
| 7. Foreign-entity screening present366.043(3)(b). The tariff must include provisions reasonably designed to prevent service to a large load customer that is a foreign entity. Required; reaches the gate, not the total. | Required | ||||
| Gate: clears, shortfall to defend, or misses a required test | not yet read | not yet read | not yet read | not yet read | |
| Total, % | not yet read | not yet read | not yet read | not yet read | |
| Required tests met, of five | not yet read | not yet read | not yet read | not yet read | |
| Deferred, of six | not yet read | not yet read | not yet read | not yet read | |
| Optional tools met, of two | not yet read | not yet read | not yet read | not yet read |
Choose a finding in any cell and the five rows below fill themselves. The total stays blank until all five required tariff tests have been read, because a partial total reads lower than the filing deserves.
All four columns open on the published readings, explained filing by filing below. Change any cell to test a different reading; the button above restores the published ones. Nothing in the bottom five rows requires a forecast or a judgment about relative importance: the gate follows fixed rules from the findings and the counts are arithmetic on the cells above them. A miss at the gate is a reading of the filed words, not a finding the Commission has made or will make.
The PDF is the same seven tests as a printable worksheet. Mark a finding with one click in every cell. In Adobe Acrobat and Acrobat Reader the gate, the total and the three counts fill themselves in; other PDF viewers leave them for you to type. The matrix on this page does the arithmetic in any browser and saves your completed matrix straight to a PDF.
Fillable worksheet, PDF, 12 pages, amended September 18, 2026
The worksheet predates the September 24 amendment. Its gate field reads clears or misses; where a required test reads partially met and none reads not met, write shortfall to defend. The matrix on this page applies the amended rule.
Three of the four utilities filed by October 1. Duke filed nothing new and relies on the petition it filed in April, read October 4. Each filing is read below against the seven tests and test zero, with the filed words and sheet numbers that carry each finding. Every finding is a reading of what was filed, not a finding the Commission has made. Findings at Tests 2 through 5 that turn on a cost figure are stated by the utility, not verified.
| TECO | FPL | Florida Public Utilities | Duke | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Docket, filed | 20260146-EI, Sept. 30 | 20260149-EI, Oct. 1 | 20260148-EI, Oct. 1 | 20260064-EI, Apr. 22 (pending petition) |
| Gate | Shortfall to defend | Misses a required test (Test 1) | Misses a required test (Test zero) | Misses a required test (Test 1) |
| Total | 80 percent | 50 percent | 60 percent | 60 percent |
| Required tests met | 3 of 5 | 1 of 5 | 2 of 5 | 2 of 5 |
| Deferred | 0 of 6 | 0 of 6 | 4 of 6 | 1 of 6 |
| Optional tools met | 1 of 2 | 0 of 2 | 0 of 2 | 0 of 2 |
Three of the four filings miss a required test, and two of those, Florida Public Utilities and Duke, total higher than FPL. That is why the gate, not the number, is the headline.
What was filed. A petition with two new rate schedules, LLCS-1 and LLCS-2, and a Large Load Customer Contract, Docket 20260146-EI, Document No. 07096-2026, filed September 30, 2026, with testimony from Penelope Rusk (rate design and compliance), Aponte (resource plan) and Stewart Miller (revenue requirement). Nothing is redacted. TECO testifies that no customer qualifies today (Rusk, p. 12).
Gate: shortfall to defend. Total: 80 percent. No required test reads not met. Two read partially met, coverage and security, and TECO will have to defend both.
What was filed. A compliance filing and request for proposed agency action, Docket 20260149-EI, Document No. 07123-2026, filed October 1, 2026. FPL files no new large-load tariff. It relies on its LLCS-1 and LLCS-2 schedules and the LLCS Service Agreement, approved in its 2025 rate settlement (Order No. PSC-2026-0022-S-EI, issued January 22, 2026; the filing cites January 29) before SB 484 took effect, as the filing notes (para. 20). It asks the Commission to find "as a matter of law" that they comply (para. 22) and adds two foreign-entity revisions to its general tariff (paras. 13 to 16). It asks for proposed agency action, a route the Commission uses when no facts are in dispute; FPL states it knows of no disputed fact (paras. 7, 8, 23). No witnesses. Nothing is redacted.
Gate: misses a required test (Test 1). Total: 50 percent. The tariff is not empty. It carries a 20-year term, two years' notice, an exit fee, and it meets the curtailment and foreign-entity tests. The miss is coverage.
Why Test 1 reads not met here and partially met for TECO. Both tariffs narrow the statute's definition, and in both cases the customer left out can take service on a general schedule. The difference is who is left out. TECO's limit leaves out load that already existed when the tariff took effect, which did not cause the new plant the tariff pays for, and that load stays on the schedule it was already on. FPL's load-factor floor leaves out new 50 MW customers, whose demand triggers new capacity the same way a qualifying customer's does. That is the case Test 1 names, in text published in September before any filing existed: "A load factor used as an eligibility floor that leaves a 50 MW customer outside the tariff is" a coverage defect. The rubric applied that reading to this same FPL tariff in September, in the comparison column, and it reads the same now that FPL has filed it. A load factor used inside a tariff to price steadiness, which 366.043(5)(e) allows, would not be a coverage defect. Whether a utility may serve a statutory large load customer under a general schedule at all is contested in Docket 20260064-EI, and this reading is a construction of 366.043(8), not a settled one.
What would move FPL: drop the 85 percent load-factor floor (Test 1) and size security to committed investment (Test 3).
What was filed. A petition for a Large Load Service framework schedule, Rate Schedule LLS, Sheets 7.027 to 7.029, Docket 20260148-EI, Document No. 07117-2026, filed October 1, 2026. Florida Public Utilities has no customer that meets the definition or that it expects to grow into it, and has had no inquiries (paras. 7, 9). It says it therefore "has no basis upon which to calculate rates" (para. 9). Every rate, term and guarantee goes into a customer-specific Large Load Service Agreement, filed with the Commission "for approval before permanent service is furnished" (Sheet 7.028). No testimony. Nothing is redacted.
Gate: misses a required test (Test zero). Total: 60 percent. Florida Public Utilities is a small utility with no large-load customers and no inquiries, and it buys its power. The tariff is honest about that, and it is a reasonable position for a utility with no prospects. The statute still asks for a tariff, and this one states no rate to read.
Read October 4, 2026. No new large-load docket opened for Duke on October 1, and Duke filed nothing new in Docket 20260064-EI between its September 15 post-hearing brief and October 1. Under test zero as published, the instrument Duke relies on is the one read.
What was filed. An amended petition with a Large Load Customer Policy (the LLCP, Sheets 4.130 to 4.132), a Large Load Customer Agreement (the LLCA, Sheets 7.510 to 7.530) and a revised contribution-in-aid-of-construction rule (Sheet 4.030), Docket 20260064-EI, Document No. 02327-2026, filed April 22, 2026, after the Legislature passed SB 484 and before it was signed. The petition says it "also meets" the statute's filing requirement (para. 6). The docket was heard August 25 and 26, 2026, and Duke filed its post-hearing brief September 15, 2026, Document No. 06679-2026. Duke's brief states it has no committed large-load data center customers and does not expect an executed agreement in 2026 (pp. 11, 26). Nothing in the tariff sheets is redacted. On the Commission's schedule for the docket, the staff recommendation is due October 22 and the agenda conference is November 3, 2026.
Other parties' positions, from their September 15 post-hearing briefs. The Office of Public Counsel (Document No. 06677-2026) and Florida Rising (Document No. 06674-2026, redacted version) are parties to the docket. Their arguments are cited to their briefs. None is a finding of the Commission, and none changes a finding above.
Gate: misses a required test (Test 1). Total: 60 percent. The filing is not empty. It carries a 20-year term, two years' notice, a termination fee and a full advance on extension costs, and it meets the curtailment and foreign-entity tests. Duke has no large-load customer, its base rates are fixed through 2027 under its 2024 settlement, and it presents the GSD-1 and GSDT-1 placement as an interim measure. The miss is coverage, in the definition of who the policy reaches.
Why Test 1 reads not met here and partially met for TECO. TECO's schedules apply "To all Customers with an anticipated monthly peak load of 50 megawatts or more at a single location" (Sheets 6.850 and 6.880), the statute's words, with no interval or firmness condition added. TECO uses a 30-minute interval only for billing demand (Sheets 6.860 and 6.895), which sets what a customer pays, not who qualifies. And TECO keeps an interruptible large load inside its large-load tariff: customers that meet its applicability requirements "are not eligible for service under" its interruptible and load management programs (Sheets 6.870 and 6.905). Duke writes both the interval and firmness into who qualifies. The existing-site exemption is where the two filings match, and it reads the same for both. Test 1, published in September before any filing existed, names the interval as a watch item, "thresholds measured other than as a 15-minute peak at one location," and states the rule that decides firmness: "A load factor used as an eligibility floor that leaves a 50 MW customer outside the tariff is" a coverage defect, while a load factor used inside a tariff to price steadiness is not. This reading does not estimate how many customers either condition reaches. The finding rests on the text: a customer the statute covers can fall outside the tariff.
What would move Duke: measure the threshold over 15 minutes, as the statute does, and bring interruptible and curtailable large load inside the policy, priced differently if Duke chooses (Test 1); and size security to the committed investment (Test 3).
Every term below appears somewhere in this framework. Nothing here assumes prior knowledge of utility regulation.
Every checkable fact in this document traces to one of the documents below. Each was opened at the address given. Two are retrieved by number from the Commission's docket search because the Commission's document server does not publish stable addresses for them.
It does not forecast the contents of filings that do not yet exist; every statement about them stays conditional until October 1. It takes no view on how large the buildout will be, only on who bears the risk if it is wrong. It is not a finding about what the Commission will or should decide.