Major efficiency investment completed.
TAMPA BAY · SOURCE-DRIVEN CITIZEN INVESTIGATION
The Price
of Power
A utility bill is not one number. It is usage, tier pricing, fuel, storm recovery, regulation and investment layered together.
THE MISSION
Make a complex regulated utility system understandable to an ordinary customer — without turning uncertainty into accusation.
42canonical bill months
40direct source PDFs
96,660kWh analyzed
11.01¢42-month Energy + Fuel effective rate
The question
If I use less electricity, why doesn't my bill necessarily go down?
00
WHY THIS INVESTIGATION STARTED · THE HOUSE CAME FIRST
Before the dockets, tariffs and regulators, there was one simple goal: make the house use less electricity.
The household first tackled what it could control: consumption.
Roof/attic leakage work completed.
Insulation upgraded.
Still a possible envelope investment.
Could generation finally put part of the bill back under household control?
HVAC replaced. Air leakage reduced. R-38 installed. The bill still would not become a solved problem.
That is the bridge between a home-improvement project and this public-record investigation: efficiency can reduce consumption, but it cannot freeze tariffs, riders, recovery clauses, taxes or future approved costs.
01
THE HOUSEHOLD RECORD
First, separate usage from price.
The most useful comparable layer across 42 months is Energy+Fuel.
Effective Energy+Fuel price rose 20.8% while annual usage fell 20.9%.
In the comparable seven-month window, both usage and price rose.
Jul 2026 · 3,528 kWh · $459.16
ENERGY + FUEL
Feb 2023 → Jul 2026Effective price per kWh
USAGE
kWhMonthly electricity use
| Period | Months | kWh | Energy+Fuel | Effective rate | Price index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 YTD | 11 | 23,244 | $2,617.98 | 11.26¢ | 117.5 |
| 2024 | 12 | 31,359 | $3,006.65 | 9.59¢ | 100.0 |
| 2025 | 12 | 24,792 | $2,870.38 | 11.58¢ | 120.8 |
| 2026 YTD | 7 | 17,265 | $2,151.18 | 12.46¢ | 130.0 |
2026 is year-to-date through July.
02
RSVP-1 / ENERGY PLANNER
The rate is a stack, not a sticker price.
P1–P4 are shown as energy-ex-fuel components.
CANONICAL · NO UNKNOWN P4
| Period | P1 / Low | P2 / Medium | P3 / High | P4 / Critical | Fuel | SPP | Storm | CETM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08–2023-12 | 4.368¢ | 5.890¢ | 13.087¢ | 44.924¢ | 5.239¢ | 0.373¢ | 1.022¢ | 0.430¢ |
| 2024-01–2024-05 | 3.450¢ | 5.909¢ | 15.347¢ | 50.358¢ | 3.843¢ | 0.658¢ | 0.219¢ | 0.430¢ |
| 2024-06–2024-12 | 3.450¢ | 5.909¢ | 15.347¢ | 50.358¢ | 3.157¢ | 0.658¢ | 0.219¢ | 0.430¢ |
| 2025-01–2025-02 | 6.040¢ | 8.109¢ | 15.583¢ | 47.269¢ | 3.083¢ | 0.722¢ | 0.000¢ | 0.406¢ |
| 2025-03–2025-12 | 6.040¢ | 8.109¢ | 15.583¢ | 47.269¢ | 3.083 through May 2025; 3.391 June through Dec 2025 | 0.722¢ | 1.995¢ | 0.406¢ |
| 2026-01–2026-07 | 6.405¢ | 8.462¢ | 17.221¢ | 51.126¢ | 3.516¢ | 0.717¢ | 1.995¢ | 0.406¢ |
How to read this table
P1–P4 are energy-ex-fuel components; fuel and riders remain separate.
P1 / LOW6.405¢
2026 energy-ex-fuel component.
P2 / MEDIUM8.462¢
The middle pricing period.
P3 / HIGH17.221¢
Higher-cost scheduled hours.
P4 / CRITICAL51.126¢
Critical pricing must never regress to UNKNOWN.
2023P1 4.368¢ · P2 5.890¢ · P3 13.087¢ · P4 44.924¢
2024P1 3.450¢ · P2 5.909¢ · P3 15.347¢ · P4 50.358¢
2025P1 6.040¢ · P2 8.109¢ · P3 15.583¢ · P4 47.269¢
2026 YTDP1 6.405¢ · P2 8.462¢ · P3 17.221¢ · P4 51.126¢
The structure changed unevenly across P1/P2/P3/P4.
A component can change inside a displayed period.
The project keeps those semantics separate.
03
REGULATION
A bill changes after a chain of requests, objections and decisions.
The project keeps three voices separate.
$296.6Minitial 2025 base-rate increase requested
10.50%authorized ROE midpoint
3customer service hearings in June 2024
53customers testified, per final order
REV-REQ
2025 operating revenue increase
TECO
Requested approximately $296.6 million annual operating revenue increase.
OPC / intervenors
OPC and other consumer/intervenor parties challenged multiple components of the requested revenue requirement.
FPSC
TECO later summarized the Commission decision as approximately +$185 million for 2025, subject to the qualification that exact post-reconsideration schedules still require reconciliation.
DOCUMENTED WITH QUALIFIER
ROE
Return on equity midpoint
TECO
Requested 11.5% midpoint ROE.
OPC / intervenors
Consumer advocates argued for lower customer costs and challenged the requested return.
FPSC
Authorized 10.50% midpoint, with a 9.50%-11.50% range.
DOCUMENTED
LTIP
Long-Term Incentive Plan tied to Emera financial performance
TECO
TECO argued LTIP is a reasonable part of market-based total compensation and should be recoverable from customers.
OPC / intervenors
OPC witness Lane Kollen recommended disallowing LTIP expense tied to Emera financial performance, estimating about $7.170 million reduction to the claimed revenue requirement/base-rate increase.
FPSC
Exact final customer-funded Issue 53 treatment remains open in this investigation pending clean reconciliation of the controlling final issue language and schedules.
FINAL TREATMENT OPEN
SERP
Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan expense
TECO
TECO opposed disallowance and argued the SERP expense was a reasonable compensation cost.
OPC / intervenors
OPC recommended denying approximately $0.107 million in SERP expense recovery.
FPSC
Exact final Issue 53 treatment remains open in the public claim set until fully reconciled.
FINAL TREATMENT OPEN
A Commission order is evidence of what was authorized, not what was later spent.
04A
PROCESS · PUBLIC PARTICIPATION · RISK
The price story is bigger than the tariff table.
The tariff table captures only part of the customer story. Regulatory records show the decisions, participation windows, storm-protection spending and risk allocation behind it.
HOW TO READ THIS EVIDENCE
A proposal is not an outcome. A projected cost is not actual spending. An approved amount is not proof of benefit. Contact is not proof of causation.
RATE CASE PROCESS
Five milestones, kept separate.
TECO test-year notification
The rate-case process was already moving before the formal petition was filed.
FROZENOPC notice of intervention
The statutory consumer advocate entered before the formal rate petition.
FROZENTECO filed its petition for rate increase
The formal rate request, MFRs and supporting testimony entered the record.
FROZENCommission Conference decision / Vote Sheet DN 10091-2024
The Commission reached its decision at the December 3 conference; exact commissioner-by-commissioner issue votes remain a separate P0 extraction task.
FROZEN FOR DATE/RECORD IDENTITYFinal Rate Case Order PSC-2025-0038-FOF-EI issued
The written final order followed the Commission decision by 62 days.
FROZENPUBLIC PARTICIPATION
What access actually looked like.
The first customer-service hearing followed the formal petition by 69 days. That timing describes the process; it does not prove intent.
First virtual customer service hearing
Second virtual customer service hearing
In-person customer service hearing; Spanish interpreter available
ACCESS FACT
Only one of the three originally scheduled customer service hearings was in person, and it was scheduled for 10:00 a.m.; OPC sought an additional in-person evening hearing.
STORM PROTECTION PLAN
Customers fund resilience before the next storm.
The proposed 2026–2035 plan continued seven existing programs and added two new programs. Project counts and projected costs are plan values — not completed work or measured benefit.
$124.2M projected
$121.9M projected
$125.1M projected
1,000 kWh estimated SPP “total cost” bill impact2026 $8.48 · 2027 $10.12 · 2028 $11.45
TECO hearing testimony; estimates, not actual future bills. The same testimony ties allocation factors to the 2024 base-rate case.
Read the PSC filing ↗
STORM DAMAGE→UTILITY CASH / RESERVE→DEFERRED RECOVERY→PSC REVIEW→CUSTOMER SURCHARGE / TRUE-UP
Timing matters.
Storm costs can sit as deferred balances before customer recovery. That shifts the timing of cash and financing risk, but the final recoverable amount still depends on PSC review and true-up.
Do not confuse temporary utility financing with proof that shareholders permanently absorbed the loss.
Who pays for growth?
The project’s earlier large-load work asked whether new transmission, generation and distribution investment is assigned to the customers causing the need or socialized more broadly.
Need, allocation and actual customer impact remain separate questions. Do not infer cross-subsidy without the cost-allocation record.
04
ACCOUNTABILITY
Authorized is not the same as spent. Built is not the same as proven benefit.
Program authorization, approved budget, actual spend, completed work and measured customer outcome are different evidence states.
2024 actuals
Distribution Lateral Undergrounding
185
499
$513,038
Convert existing overhead distribution laterals underground to improve resiliency and reliability during extreme weather.
Primary record ↗1AUTHORIZED
→2BUDGET
→3ACTUAL SPEND
→4COMPLETED
→5MEASURED OUTCOME
What remains unproven
The records reviewed here do not establish the complete same-scope 2024 DLU actual spend or a matched project-level reliability outcome.
05
STORM RECOVERY · REFUND · ACCOUNTABILITY
The hurricane charge is not a blank check.
The controlling PSC record says the current storm-restoration surcharge is interim and must be reconciled against final recoverable costs.
The 2025 storm-recovery charge is preliminary and subject to true-up.
The PSC has already ordered a prior TECO storm over-recovery refunded.
The current refund amount is not established by the records reviewed here.
CUSTOMER COLLECTIONS−FINAL PRUDENT RECOVERABLE COST=OVER / UNDER RECOVERY
BASE RATES
Ordinary regulated revenue requirement.
SPPCRC
Separate storm-hardening cost recovery for resilience projects.
STORM RESTORATION
Past-event restoration recovery, subject to final reconciliation.
The investigation we can now do, dollar by dollar
- Total every dollar actually collected from customers.
- Reconstruct final audited restoration cost.
- Subtract outside recoveries and credits.
- Test for duplicate recovery.
- Calculate the final over/under-recovery.
Why Storm Protection Plan spending matters
Florida law says storm-protection plans are intended to reduce restoration costs and outage times.
PRIMARY RECORDS
Read the documents, not our conclusion.
Interim storm restoration recovery / corporate undertaking
- The interim storm surcharge is subject to true-up once final recoverable storm costs are known.
- The Commission accepted a $466.7 million corporate undertaking to support the potential refund obligation.
- An 18-month recovery period produces a lower monthly residential impact than the 12-month alternative.
Storm cost and interest scenario
- TECO listed Idalia, Debby, Helene and Milton storm-cost components plus accrued and projected interest.
- For the longer recovery scenario shown, the total was $465,151,185.
- TECO stated that extending recovery increases total interest.
Customer bill impact and interim storm recovery summary
- PSC correspondence described a $19.95 monthly storm-recovery impact at 1,000 kWh for March 2025 through August 2026.
- The correspondence describes $463.6 million in approved interim recovery and replenishment of the $55.8 million storm reserve.
- The correspondence states the interim charge is preliminary and subject to refund, with interest, after final audited costs are known.
Prior TECO storm surcharge over-recovery refund
- TECO collected $135,978,101.74 through the prior storm restoration surcharge.
- The final approved storm restoration amount was $134,832,847.83.
- The Commission found an over-recovery of $1,145,253.91 and ordered it refunded through the Environmental Cost Recovery Clause.
2024 Storm Protection Plan actual/projected costs
- TECO testified that January-February actual plus March-December projected 2024 SPP costs totaled $206,272,516.
- SPPCRC is a separate cost-recovery mechanism from storm restoration recovery.
Storm Protection Plan cost recovery
- The statute states storm-hardening plans are intended to reduce restoration costs and outage times and enhance reliability.
- SPP costs may not include costs already recovered through base rates.
- The PSC conducts annual proceedings to determine prudently incurred SPP costs.
Storm-recovery financing
- Florida law contains storm-recovery financing and true-up concepts addressing overcollection and undercollection.
PSC filing 15064-2025
- Linked here as a primary record for direct reader review.
- No specific numeric claim on this page is assigned to this filing unless the filing is directly matched to that claim.
06
PUBLIC MONEY · FEDERAL SUPPORT · CUSTOMER RECOVERY
If taxpayers helped pay for it, ratepayers should not unknowingly pay for the same cost again.
Federal grants, tax credits, insurance, FEMA reimbursement and customer recovery are different accounting categories.
Federal funding selected for Polk Carbon Storage Complex Phase III.
Federal funding listed for the Polk NGCC carbon-capture FEED study.
TEC regulatory liability at 12/31/2024 for solar tax benefits to be returned to customers over three years.
No primary record located in this Stage proves a direct FEMA reimbursement to Tampa Electric for the current 2024-storm surcharge.
GROSS PROJECT / STORM COST−GRANTS / REIMBURSEMENTS / CREDITS−COST ALREADY RECOVERED ELSEWHERE=NET CUSTOMER-RECOVERABLE COST
What “double recovery” would actually require
The same cost, scope and period must be proven twice before calling it double recovery.
VERIFIED PUBLIC SUPPORT
Follow the money from government support to customer rates.
Polk Carbon Storage Complex Detailed Site Characterization
Federal cooperative/project funding
ACCOUNTABILITY TESTIf any project cost later enters regulated customer recovery, is the DOE-funded portion excluded from the customer-funded revenue requirement?
Open primary/public source ↗
VERIFIED OFFICIAL DOE
Polk Power Station NGCC Carbon Capture FEED Study
Federal project funding
ACCOUNTABILITY TESTTrack whether later customer recovery treats the federally funded FEED work as an offset, excluded cost, or separate non-ratepayer project contribution.
Open primary/public source ↗
VERIFIED OFFICIAL DOE
Solar facilities placed in service on or after January 1, 2022
Regulatory liability recorded at 12/31/2024 for tax benefits owed back to customers
ACCOUNTABILITY TESTConfirm the three-year customer refund/amortization actually appears in bills/rates as ordered.
Open primary/public source ↗
VERIFIED OFFICIAL ANNUAL REPORT
TEC qualifying solar
2024 production tax credits shown as a reduction in income-tax expense
ACCOUNTABILITY TESTDo not add this mechanically to the $57M regulatory liability; they are different accounting measures and may overlap.
Open primary/public source ↗
VERIFIED OFFICIAL ANNUAL REPORT
TEC tax position
Tax asset / carryforward, not a cash grant
ACCOUNTABILITY TESTThese are carryforwards, not customer cash and not necessarily realized in one year; track actual realization and regulatory treatment before drawing a ratepayer conclusion.
Open primary/public source ↗
VERIFIED OFFICIAL ANNUAL REPORT
Storm restoration cost recovery
Required offset methodology
ACCOUNTABILITY TESTPSC storm-cost templates expressly include deductions for third-party reimbursement and insurance proceeds. Any FEMA or other government reimbursement must therefore be identified and treated according to the controlling recovery rules if it exists.
Open primary/public source ↗
VERIFIED PSC RECORD
TECO 2024 storm restoration
Potential outside recovery
ACCOUNTABILITY TESTNo authoritative primary record reviewed here establishes a direct FEMA reimbursement to Tampa Electric for the 2024 Idalia/Debby/Helene/Milton cost recovery. The proper conclusion is unresolved, not assumed.
Open primary/public source ↗
NOT ESTABLISHED FOR TECO CURRENT STORM DOCKET
05
LOBBYING · ACCESS · LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Influence is a record to examine — not a conclusion to assume.
This section keeps lobbying, political money, voting records and causal claims analytically separate.
How to read influence evidence
LOBBYING≠CONTRIBUTION≠VOTE≠CAUSATION≠CORRUPTION
Timing and access can justify scrutiny. They do not prove a quid pro quo.
Tampa Electric is a verified lobbying principal.
Florida Legislature records identify Tampa Electric Company as a 2025 Legislative Principal.
Current 2025–2026 details remain incomplete.
The source system is verified. Publication-safe totals are not.
Every record still requires exact-entity normalization.
No contribution total is published here until that ledger closes.
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
Documented contacts with county officials
County lobbying logs document meetings. They do not say a meeting caused a later vote.
| Date | Subject | Official record says | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-06-20 | Tampa Electric | County log lists Jimmy Adcock and Stephanie Smith meeting with Gwendolyn Myers on Tampa Electric/TECO matters. | record ↗ |
| 2023-06-26 | Utility issues | County log lists Matt Herndon meeting with Adam Gormly while representing TECO. | record ↗ |
| 2024-01-19 | General update | County log records Jimmy Adcock and Archie Collins, representing Tampa Electric, meeting with Ken Hagan, Joshua Wostal and Pat Kemp. | record ↗ |
| 2024-01-23 | Update | County log records Jimmy Adcock and Archie Collins, representing Tampa Electric, meeting with Harry Cohen. | record ↗ |
| 2024-01-29 | Update | County log records Jimmy Adcock and Archie Collins, representing Tampa Electric, meeting with Gwendolyn Myers. | record ↗ |
| 2024-01-30 | Update | County log records Jimmy Adcock and Archie Collins, representing Tampa Electric, meeting with Donna Cameron Cepeda. | record ↗ |
| 2024-01-31 | Update | County log records Jimmy Adcock and Archie Collins, representing Tampa Electric, meeting with Michael Owen. | record ↗ |
| 2024-02-15 | General update | County log records Jimmy Adcock and Archie Collins, representing Tampa Electric, meeting with Bonnie Wise and Gregory Horwedel. | record ↗ |
COUNTY VOTES
Selected TECO matters before the Hillsborough County Commission
These are local land-use/government decisions, not Florida PSC rate votes.
Tampa Electric Company major modification request near E Bearss Ave & N 12th St.
Approved with conditions.
Official county record ↗Tampa Electric Company request at Sinclair Hill Road / West Lake Burrell Drive.
Approved. County vote comparison lists Y for Cameron Cepeda, Cohen, Hagan, Kemp, Myers, Owen and Wostal.
Cameron Cepeda: Y · Cohen: Y · Hagan: Y · Kemp: Y · Myers: Y · Owen: Y · Wostal: Y
Official county record ↗Tampa Electric Company rezoning request near Timberlee Rd & Lightfoot Rd.
Approved. Motion by Wostal, seconded by Cohen. In favor: Hagan, Myers, Cameron Cepeda, Cohen, Wostal, Miller and Boles.
Hagan: Y · Myers: Y · Cameron Cepeda: Y · Cohen: Y · Wostal: Y · Miller: Y · Boles: Y
Official county record ↗Related Tampa Electric Company minor modification request in the Timberlee/Lightfoot area.
Approved. Motion by Wostal, seconded by Cohen. In favor: Hagan, Myers, Cameron Cepeda, Cohen, Wostal, Miller and Boles.
Hagan: Y · Myers: Y · Cameron Cepeda: Y · Cohen: Y · Wostal: Y · Miller: Y · Boles: Y
Official county record ↗HILLSBOROUGH COUNTYLand use · local approvals · county government
≠FLORIDA PSCUtility rates · cost recovery · regulatory orders
05
INFLUENCE · GROWTH · LARGE LOADS
Ask hard questions without inventing a causal story.
None of these signals, by itself, proves corruption or cost-shifting.
Timing is a question, not an accusation.
Political-money totals stay unpublished until every record is normalized.
Project-specific evidence comes first.
A proposed Tampa Bay data center is not assumed to be served by TECO without a project record.
TECO reported no short-term planned new data centers.
That is a dated baseline, not a claim about every later proposal.
08A
CURRENT WATCH · 2026
The record is still moving.
These current proceedings may change the customer-cost and accountability picture.
2026-04-27OPEN PSC DOCKET
Bayside Steam Turbine Unit 2 outage review
Florida PSC Order PSC-2026-0116-PCO-EI acknowledged OPC intervention in the review of Tampa Electric Company's 2024-2025 Bayside Steam Turbine Unit 2 outage.
This is a current accountability proceeding worth tracking. The docket record must establish fault or customer-cost impact before either is stated as fact.
Official record ↗2026-08-24CURRENT TARIFF ORDER / DOCKET
Revised underground residential distribution tariff
The PSC docket calendar shows an August 24, 2026 tariff-order milestone for Tampa Electric's petition for approval of a revised underground residential distribution tariff.
A current tariff change belongs in the regulatory watch list, but it must not be mixed with RSVP-1 P1-P4 energy-pricing history.
Official record ↗2025-06-04COMPANY TESTIMONY / HEARING RECORD
2026-2035 Storm Protection Plan bill impact
TECO testimony showed estimated 'total cost' residential bill impacts for a 1,000 kWh customer of $8.48 in 2026, $10.12 in 2027, and $11.45 in 2028.
These are estimated plan impacts, not actual future bills.
Official record ↗2025-01-15ATTRIBUTED COMPANY TESTIMONY
Milton-driven transmission hardening proposal
TECO stated that Hurricane Milton led it to propose more SCADA-controlled transmission switches and said it expected faster fault isolation and restoration, while also stating it had not developed a quantitative estimate of those benefits at that time.
This creates an outcome test: later reliability/restoration data should be compared with the promised benefit rather than treating the promise as proof.
Official record ↗08B
PSC DEEP ARCHIVE · TRUE-UP · VOTES · TARIFFS
The rate story lives in the record — not in a press release.
Each regulatory step is kept separate from the next.
REQUESTED→STAFF RECOMMENDATION→COMMISSION DECISION→EFFECTIVE TARIFF→BILLED→TRUE-UP
Vote Sheet Issue 39 recommendation; range 9.30–11.30%.
Vote Sheet Issue 38 recommendation.
2024 final true-up after prior approved over-recovery is netted out.
Prior-year true-up + current actual/estimated + next-year projection.
Why over-recovery matters — and why the mechanism matters just as much
Over-recovery is a reconciliation result, not by itself proof of permanent retention.
PRIMARY RECORDS
Follow the issue, order and tariff.
TECO rate case Vote Sheet
- Issue 37 recommendation: $3,505.671 million long-term debt at 4.53%.
- Issue 38 recommendation: 54.00% equity ratio and $4,553.645 million common equity.
- Issue 39 recommendation: 10.30% authorized ROE, range 9.30%–11.30%.
Evidence guard: A staff recommendation or Vote Sheet entry is not automatically an individual commissioner vote. Commissioner-level YES/NO positions are stated only when the primary record directly supports them.
Open PSC source ↗Environmental Clause final true-up
- 2024 Environmental Clause actual over-recovery including interest: $5,895,183.
- After subtracting the previously approved $3,297,632 over-recovery, the final true-up was a $2,597,551 over-recovery.
- The filing states the over-recovery would be applied in the subsequent recovery period.
Evidence guard: This is a separate clause from SPPCRC and storm restoration; values must not be combined as one generic refund.
Open PSC source ↗Projected 2025 Storm Protection Plan recovery
- The filing contains program-by-program O&M and capital recovery schedules for the 2025 projected period.
- SPPCRC is an annual clause with true-up/actual-estimated/projection components.
Evidence guard: Projected plan values are not actual spend and are not measured outcomes.
Open PSC source ↗PSC approves 2025 SPPCRC recovery
- PSC describes SPPCRC as an annual hearing for prudently incurred storm-protection-plan costs.
- Approved amounts include prior-year true-up, current-year actual/estimated costs, and following-year projected costs.
Evidence guard: This confirms clause mechanics but does not replace the underlying order/filing for utility-specific line items.
Open PSC source ↗Revised underground residential distribution tariff
- Docket remains open.
- PSC docket schedule lists an August 24, 2026 tariff-order milestone and a September 14, 2026 protest deadline.
Evidence guard: This tariff proceeding is separate from RSVP-1 P1–P4 pricing history.
Open PSC source ↗Florida PSC electric tariff library
- PSC maintains electric tariff access for Tampa Electric Company.
Evidence guard: Effective tariff sheets, not a filing date alone, control the customer-facing rate period.
Open PSC source ↗Rate-case decision points in Vote Sheet 10091-2024
Issue 37Long-term debt$3,505.671M @ 4.53%
Issue 38Equity ratio54.00%
Issue 39Authorized ROE10.30% · range 9.30–11.30%
These are issue recommendations and decision points from the Vote Sheet. This page does not assign commissioner-by-commissioner YES/NO positions unless the primary record directly supports that assignment.
08C
COLLECTED · RECOVERABLE · TRUE-UP
The first amount customers pay is not always the final amount the utility may keep.
The useful question is collected versus finally recoverable, mechanism by mechanism.
over-recovery including interest
TECO reported $93.659M collected and $83.300M of jurisdictionally separated revenue requirements. The filed clause calculation produced an $8.678M over-recovery including interest.
TECO filing 03292-2025 ↗estimated over-recovery including interest
TECO's actual/estimated schedule shows $8.792M of current-period over-recovery plus $0.564M of interest. This remains an estimate, not a final adjudicated refund.
TECO Form E-1 ↗final over-recovery ordered refunded
A separate prior storm-restoration proceeding reached a final over-recovery that the Commission ordered refunded through the Environmental Cost Recovery Clause.
PSC final order ↗
THREE DIFFERENT MECHANISMS — DO NOT ADD THEM TOGETHER.
SPPCRC, storm restoration and the Environmental Clause are separate regulatory accounts with different periods and true-up rules. Their over-recoveries show why reconciliation matters; they are not one combined customer refund.
RATE CASE · ISSUE 53
One previously unresolved question now has a final answer.
The Commission approved short-term and long-term compensation but removed $107,000 of SERP expense. The approved 2025 projected-test-year salaries and benefits amount was $376,802,000.
TECO sought $376.909M. The final order approved $376.802M after removing SERP recovery.
TECO request$376.909M
SERP removed−$0.107M
Commission approved$376.802M
STILL OPEN
The current 2024-hurricane storm surcharge still requires final reconciliation.
The PSC Vote Sheet says the interim surcharge remains subject to final true-up and the docket should remain open until actual recoverable storm costs are reconciled with customer collections. No current refund amount is stated here before that reconciliation is established.
PSC Vote Sheet 00663-2025 ↗08D
TRUE-UP EVOLUTION · ESTIMATE → ACTUAL
A true-up is not one number. It is a sequence.
The same regulatory chain can contain an actual true-up, a carryforward and a later actual-versus-estimate correction.
$8.581M current-period over-recovery + $0.097M interest.
The prior approved $0.607M under-recovery is reconciled against the actual result.
Estimated over-recovery including interest reflected in the 2026 factors.
Actual over-recovery including interest reported in the 2026 filing.
Net under-recovery carried into the 2027 factor calculation.
Why $8.678M and $9.285M are both correct
2024 actual over-recovery incl. interest$8,677,945
Less previously approved actual/estimated position− (−$606,964)
Amount carried into 2026 projection$9,284,909
The earlier approved position was an under-recovery. Reconciling that negative amount against the later actual over-recovery increases the carryforward.
Form A-1 · 02483-2025 ↗
DOUBLE-RECOVERY GUARDRAIL
SPPCRC cannot lawfully include the same costs already recovered elsewhere.
TECO testimony cites Rule 25-6.031(7), F.A.C.: SPPCRC costs may not include costs recovered through base rates or another cost-recovery mechanism. TECO says it uses internal tracking and the 2020 Settlement Agreement methodology to avoid duplication.
What this investigation still tests
Rule + company procedure ≠ proof of perfect execution. The audit question remains whether the actual cost schedules, grants, credits, tax benefits and other recovery mechanisms reconcile without same-cost overlap.
Read TECO testimony ↗
WHAT IS STILL MISSING
Financial reconciliation is getting stronger. Outcome reconciliation is not finished.
The SPP filings increasingly tell us what was projected, what was collected and what was reconciled. They still do not by themselves prove that the exact same project cohort produced the promised reduction in outage duration or restoration cost. That requires matched program-level completion and reliability data.
09A
2027 AND BEYOND · WHO PAYS NEXT?
The rate story does not stop in 2026.
Future increases are not one blank check; each adjustment still depends on project timing and the approved recovery process.
The original rate-case exhibit identified a 2026 subsequent-year revenue requirement tied to projects entering service.
The same exhibit identified another 2027 adjustment. The final order requires a September 2026 filing and verification before January 2027 effectiveness.
Separate from base-rate SYA: TECO's 2026-2035 Storm Protection Plan projects this annual SPP revenue requirement for 2027.
BASE-RATE SYA ≠ SPPCRC ≠ STORM RESTORATION ≠ FUEL / ENVIRONMENTAL CLAUSES
These can all affect the same household bill, but they are different recovery mechanisms. The investigation tracks each separately before explaining the combined customer impact.
Storm-protection spending is a long runway, not a one-year event.
TECO's 2026-2035 Storm Protection Plan projects about $2.417B of capital and O&M across the decade. The projected annual revenue requirement rises from $142.27M in 2026 to $331.11M in 2035. These are utility projections, not proof that every future annual amount has already been finally approved for recovery.
TECO 2026-2035 Storm Protection Plan ↗
WHAT HAPPENS TO OVER-COLLECTION?
True-ups include interest — but that does not necessarily mean an immediate cash refund.
The 2024 SPPCRC actual true-up included $96,851 of interest. The 2025 actual/estimated filing included $564,135 of estimated interest. Those balances are reconciled through later clause factors. The records reviewed here do not establish that the over-collected money sits in a separately segregated customer bank account.
The customer-accountability question is therefore: how quickly was an over-recovery recognized, what interest was applied, and when did it actually reduce a later factor or produce a refund?
09B
DATA CENTERS · LARGE LOAD · COST SHIFT
Is John Smith paying today for infrastructure built for tomorrow's data center?
The evidence shows recruitment activity, not yet a proven residential subsidy.
TECO said it was actively working to attract a data center.
In a PSC data request, Tampa Electric said its 2025 Ten-Year Site Plan did not include specific data-center load for 2025-2034 and that it had no end-use customer commitments for data-center load at that time.
PSC filing 03323-2025 ↗No primary record reviewed here ties a specific residential charge to a committed TECO data-center project.
System-wide grid, generation, storage or reliability projects may benefit many future loads. That is not enough to say ordinary households are subsidizing a particular data center. To prove cost shifting, we need a named project, load commitment, infrastructure scope, allocation method and approved recovery path.
Nearby Lakeland chose to slow down and study the issue.
In 2026 Lakeland proposed a temporary moratorium on data centers and large-load customers while evaluating infrastructure requirements, utility impacts, land-use rules and public input.
City of Lakeland notice ↗The test for a real data-center subsidy
1Identify the customer or committed large-load project.
2Identify the exact generation, transmission, substation or distribution work built for that load.
3Trace the project into rate base or a recovery clause.
4Find the cost-allocation method: who pays before and after the large load connects?
5Compare minimum-demand, contribution-in-aid, contract and exit-risk protections against the infrastructure cost.
10
THE CUSTOMER STORY
What does all of this mean for an ordinary household?
Pays for the regulated utility system and approved investments included in rate base.
Recovers approved storm-protection costs, with annual true-ups and interest.
Can add a temporary surcharge after major storms, subject to later final reconciliation.
Fuel, environmental and other approved mechanisms can move independently.
The household sees one total bill even though the regulatory mechanisms underneath it are different.
The investigation's central question is no longer just “why did the bill go up?”
It is: which mechanism increased, what project or cost justified it, what was ultimately spent, what was later reconciled, who received the benefit, and who carried the risk while regulators waited for the final numbers?
11A
FEDERAL RESET · PUBLIC LAW 119-21
The homeowner changed the house. Then Washington changed the math.
This is not a TECO tariff. It changes the economics around the tariff.
IRS says the Energy Efficient Home Improvement Credit is not allowed for property placed in service after December 31, 2025.
IRS primary guidance ↗IRS says the Residential Clean Energy Credit is not allowed for expenditures made after December 31, 2025.
IRS primary guidance ↗For applicable wind and solar facilities, OBBB/Notice 2025-42 makes the construction-start date critical. Facilities beginning after July 4, 2026 face the new termination rule for projects placed in service after 2027.
IRS Notice 2025-42 ↗OBBB added prohibited-foreign-entity and material-assistance restrictions affecting 45Y, 48E and 45X. Treasury/IRS issued interim guidance in 2026.
IRS/Treasury 2026 guidance ↗
WHAT CHANGED FOR JOHN?
The same solar system can have a different payback because the policy environment changed.
A household installing in 2026 cannot model the old federal 25D credit as if it still existed. At the same time, future utility-scale generation economics may also change because eligibility windows and sourcing rules changed.
WHAT THIS DOES NOT PROVE
Federal tax policy is not a TECO rate order.
It can influence investment costs and choices, but it does not by itself prove that a particular TECO charge is higher, lower or improperly allocated.
10D
SOLAR REALITY CHECK · 2026
Solar is not automatically the answer. Now we can calculate when it becomes one.
For a new residential installation completed in 2026, the former federal Residential Clean Energy Credit is no longer available. Florida still provides qualifying solar sales/property-tax treatment, and TECO offers interconnection and net metering. But net-metered customers cannot remain on Energy Planner.
IRS: no Residential Clean Energy Credit for expenditures treated as made after Dec. 31, 2025.
IRS ↗Qualifying solar systems receive Florida sales-tax exemption; TECO also identifies residential renewable-energy property-tax treatment.
Florida DOR ↗Excess kWh can be carried forward under TECO net metering.
TECO ↗TECO states net-metered solar is not compatible with Energy Planner; the customer switches to standard residential service.
TECO ↗Call the insurer before signing.
Florida consumer-protection disclosures require solar sellers to warn that rooftop solar may affect future insurance premiums and that the homeowner should contact the carrier before purchase or lease.
Florida CFO ↗The roof and the solar system become linked.
Florida's required disclosure tells buyers to consider the roof's age and remaining life because roof replacement may require reinstallation of the solar system. DOE likewise notes that roof replacement requires panel and mounting-system removal.
DOE ↗Panels are not the only component.
DOE recommends regular maintenance and notes that components such as inverters may need updating. Budgeting only the day-one panel price understates lifecycle ownership.
DOE ↗Disposal is a real lifecycle step.
EPA says panels commonly last more than 25 years. End-of-life panels become solid waste; some can qualify as hazardous waste depending on composition and testing. Recycling can recover materials, but U.S. panel recycling is not yet occurring at large scale.
EPA ↗TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP · SCENARIO MODEL
Solar break-even should include more than the installation invoice.
UPFRONT + LIFECYCLE RESERVES—
FIRST-YEAR NET VALUE—
MODELED PAYBACK—
20-YEAR NET VALUE—
BREAK-EVEN STATUS—
This is a scenario model, not a quote or insurance determination. Roof work, insurance, financing, tariff changes, inverter replacement, storm damage, battery replacement and recycling can materially change the result.ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE
Solar avoids grid purchases, but the equipment still has a material lifecycle.
EPA notes that working panels are generally safe in use, while end-of-life management must account for glass, aluminum, copper, silicon and, in some module types, metals such as lead or cadmium. Recycling can reduce landfill use and recover valuable materials; it also requires transport, processing and an available recycling pathway.
Do not turn “renewable” into “impact-free.”
The correct comparison is lifecycle impact versus the electricity and infrastructure it displaces — not a claim that either option has zero environmental cost.
Windows or solar?
There is no honest universal answer without a window/door quote and measured savings. Stage118 therefore refuses fake precision: enter real contractor and solar proposals before comparing return. The decision should be based on verified installed cost and measured/estimated kWh impact, not marketing percentages.
10E
ONE BILL · MANY MECHANISMS
Yes — money can reach the electric bill outside the headline “energy rate.”
PSC records show a residential bill can contain base rates, fuel, conservation, capacity, environmental recovery, storm-protection recovery, clean-energy transition, temporary storm restoration and Florida Gross Receipts Tax. Local franchise fees can also apply. The important distinction is that these are not all the same thing and not all are taxes.
PSC DEEP-ARCHIVE FINDING
The tax line moves when the taxable/recoverable bill underneath it moves.
TECO's 2024 rate-case MFR Schedule C-21 documented a 2.5% Gross Receipts Tax calculation and a Regulatory Assessment Fee calculation. A later 1,000-kWh 2026 bill comparison projected Florida Gross Receipts Tax revenue of $4.42 for Jan–Aug 2026 and $3.91 for Sep–Dec 2026 as the storm restoration surcharge disappeared. That is why this investigation must track the total bill, not only cents/kWh.
What we did not find: evidence in this PSC pass of a newly created broad 2026 Florida residential electricity tax replacing the existing Gross Receipts Tax. We did find existing tax/fee layers and multiple non-tax recovery mechanisms that can change the amount a household pays.
TECO MFR Schedule C-21 ↗ · 2026 residential bill comparison ↗10A
YOUR RIGHTS · WHO ACTUALLY DECIDES?
You pay the bill. Florida law gives you a voice — but not a direct rate ballot.
Chapter 366 puts investor-owned utility ratemaking in the hands of the Florida Public Service Commission. Customers can participate through the regulatory process; the final rate decision is not made by a customer referendum.
Public welfare is the stated purpose.
Florida declares utility regulation to be in the public interest and for protection of public welfare.
Statute ↗The Commission fixes the rate.
Utilities file rate changes with the Commission, which determines fair, just and reasonable rates and holds public hearings in circumstances specified by law.
Statute ↗Customers can bring service complaints.
The Commission has a statutory duty to hear qualifying service complaints from subscribers and the public during rate proceedings.
Statute ↗Public Counsel represents the people.
Public Counsel can participate, conduct discovery, take public-interest positions and seek review.
Statute ↗CUSTOMER POWERCOMMENT · COMPLAIN · PARTICIPATE · CONTACT PUBLIC COUNSEL
≠FINAL RATE VOTEFLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
F.S. 366.05(1)(e) generally requires majority Commission approval for new tariffs and substantive tariff changes.
Participation is a right. Participation is not a referendum.
We found no Chapter 366 mechanism giving TECO customers a direct YES/NO referendum on an investor-owned utility rate increase. That is different from saying customers have no procedural rights.
F.S. 366.06(3)
Some increases can be subject to refund with interest.
When this statutory procedure applies, the Commission can require accounting and later refund, with interest, the portion of an increase ultimately found unjustified.
10C
WHO CAN STILL SAY NO? · POWER MAP
John Smith can speak. But different levels of government control different parts of the energy decision.
The system is easier to understand when each layer of authority is separated.
Can choose efficiency, rooftop solar and participation.
Florida law protects the ability to install renewable-energy devices from outright or effective local/deed prohibitions, subject to lawful conditions. In utility proceedings, customers can comment, complain and participate — but do not cast the final utility-rate vote.
F.S. 163.04 ↗Local control exists — but state law draws hard boundaries around it.
F.S. 366.032 preempts listed local governments and public bodies from restricting the types or fuel sources of energy production supplied by covered utilities. HB 1137 expanded the set of local bodies covered by that preemption in 2025.
F.S. 366.032 ↗ HB 1137 summary ↗The Legislature can redefine what local governments may regulate.
HB 1645 changed state energy policy, removed certain prior renewable-energy planning requirements and programs, and further limited some local regulation of energy infrastructure. State law also makes utility-scale solar a permitted use in specified agricultural categories.
HB 1645 summary ↗ F.S. 163.3205 ↗The Commission controls investor-owned utility ratemaking.
Customers can participate, OPC can litigate and utilities can request recovery, but Commission approval is the legal decision point for regulated rates and tariffs.
See consumer-rights section ↓Tax law can change the economics even when Florida law does not change the tariff.
Public Law 119-21 accelerated termination of residential energy credits and changed eligibility/timing rules for major clean-electricity credits. Those changes affect project economics, not the legal authority of a Florida customer to vote on TECO rates.
IRS OBBB FAQ ↗
RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE ≠ POWER TO VETO
The point is not that every decision has been taken away from the public. The point is that each decision has a specific legal owner — and several Florida statutes expressly preempt certain local energy restrictions.
10B
NEW 2026 FLORIDA LAW · LARGE LOADS
Florida law now says the cost-shift risk out loud.
F.S. 366.043 says uniquely large electrical loads can impose disproportionate risk on other ratepayers and requires protections designed to prevent those costs from shifting to the general body of ratepayers.
Anticipated monthly peak at one location.
Large-load customer bears its own full cost of service.
Costs and nonpayment risk may not be shifted to general ratepayers.
Each public utility must file a compliant tariff for Commission approval.
Full cost expressly reaches infrastructure.
Connection · incremental transmission · incremental generation · other infrastructure · operations and maintenance · other costs required to serve the large-load customer.
Permitted protection tools
Infrastructure contributions · minimum demand charges · incremental generation charges · financial guarantees · minimum load factors · take-or-pay · minimum service terms · early termination fees.
This strengthens the data-center investigation — without overclaiming it.
The Legislature itself now recognizes large-load cost shifting as a risk that must be mitigated. The statute does not prove that TECO previously shifted a specific data-center cost to residential customers. It gives us the test for the next filing: who pays connection, transmission, generation, infrastructure, operating and exit risk?
F.S. 366.043 ↗11B
2021 → 2026 · THE RULES KEPT MOVING
John's bill changed inside a legal system that was changing too.
Florida energy preemption / solar siting
State law limits certain local energy restrictions and establishes statewide solar-facility siting rules in agricultural categories.
F.S. 366.032 history ↗HB 1645
Florida revises energy policy, changes renewable-planning requirements/programs and adds further energy-infrastructure provisions.
Florida Senate summary ↗HB 1137
The state expands which local bodies are covered by utility-service preemption.
Florida Senate summary ↗OBBB signed
Federal energy-credit timelines change, including early termination of household 25C/25D incentives.
IRS ↗Wind / solar construction threshold
The construction-start date becomes critical for the OBBB 45Y/48E wind/solar termination rules.
IRS Notice 2025-42 ↗Large-load tariffs due
Florida utilities must file tariffs implementing the new 50 MW+ large-load cost-shift protections.
F.S. 366.043 ↗06
WHAT THE RECORD CAN SUPPORT
Confidence should match the evidence.
Green = verified. Amber = one precisely identified evidence gap.
Rate Case Issue 53 compensation
Final Commission order closes the Issue 53 recoverability question.
42-month bill arithmetic
40 direct source PDFs; Feb–Mar 2026 structured-only.
Canonical P1–P4 timeline
No public P4 UNKNOWN values remain.
Exact commissioner issue-by-issue votes
The decision is known. The unresolved part is the exact individual vote matrix.
Money → outcome chain
Financial reconciliation is strong; matched project-level outcomes are still incomplete.
07
EVIDENCE ROOM
The reader should be able to inspect the trail.
The public story is deliberately shorter than the research archive.
01FPSC final rate-case order PSC-2025-0038-FOF-EI↗02FPSC docket search↗03TECO 2024 SPPCRC project testimony↗04Florida campaign finance database↗
Editorial rules
- Evidence before conclusion.
- Usage and price are measured separately.
- Requested, authorized, spent and outcome are never treated as synonyms.
- An open question is labeled open; it is not filled with a guess.