The post Clearwater said no to dumping Duke, now St. Pete is just wasting $590K appeared first on Florida Politics – Campaigns & Elections. Lobbying & Government..
—
The St. Petersburg City Council, prompted by City Council members Ritchie Floyd and Brandi Gabbard, last month approved spending up to $590,000 on a feasibility study evaluating whether establishing a public utility would be in the city and its residents’ best interest.
Last week, Clearwater handed them an answer for free.
Clearwater City Council members voted unanimously to move forward with an ordinance approving a new 30-year contract with Duke Energy, effectively ending its exploration of instead establishing a public utility.
During discussion ahead of the vote, Council members expressed concerns about a municipal utility’s ability to maintain reliability during storms and the potentially high cost burden to Clearwater taxpayers.
Clearwater already had a study, which found dumping Duke could save ratepayers about 7% a year for the first five years after establishing a municipal utility, then 18% for the next 25 years. That sounds appealing. That is, until you consider the myriad caveats.
Duke disputed Clearwater’s study, from NewGen Strategies, noting it cannot guarantee cost savings or lower rates to customers and that establishing a public utility could cost as much as $1 billion.
The NewGen study values the cost of acquiring Duke property at $572 million, but notes that the real cost of Duke’s assets could be 50% lower or 100% higher than its estimate. That means the actual cost could range from $386 million to nearly $1 billion.
The NewGen study cited a public utility established in Boulder, Colorado, as a success, but what happened there likely doesn’t meet everyone’s definition of success. Boulder spent $29 million and a decade trying to municipalize before abandoning the effort, having fallen behind on climate goals while the private utility accelerated renewable energy adoption.
The fact that Clearwater City Council members are in unanimous agreement that now is not the right time to potentially saddle taxpayers with additional fees or taxes should be the only signal St. Pete needs to pump the brakes itself.
Clearwater Mayor Bruce Rector put it best.
“The immediate cost over the next several years in trying to transition to a municipally owned electric service, all those attorneys fees — and they were going to be significant — it was going to cost our taxpayers a lot of money,” he said.
“And in this environment, with the pressure we have trying to make our taxes affordable for our citizens as well, I just don’t feel the timing is right to put that pressure additionally on our budget to go ahead and to try to do that at this time.”
In February, the City of St. Pete issued a request for proposals seeking consultants to evaluate whether the city should break from Duke Energy Florida and establish its own municipal electric utility.
In June, the City Council approved the $590,000 maximum spend with NewGen Strategies, the same firm that conducted a study for Clearwater. Speaking at that June meeting, Downtown St. Petersburg Partnership CEO Jason Mathis questioned the wisdom behind funding a study that was already available, even if the comparison isn’t exactly apples to apples.
“Today in the city of St. Petersburg on June 4, 2026, $600,000 is a lot of money,” he said.
“And it’s worth asking, how will this be materially different than the Clearwater study that was just completed? Can’t we extrapolate from that? Do we need to pay full price for our own St. Pete version? During a time when every penny counts and we may face reduced city services or raising taxes, that’s a legitimate question.”
And while it may not appeal to St. Pete’s liberal bent, Florida TaxWatch has also weighed in on the Clearwater issue, offering words of caution that can be directly applied to St. Pete. The study found that “Clearwater’s proposed municipal electric utility presents substantial financial and legal risks with limited upside for taxpayers.”
The TaxWatch report concluded that the NewGen study likely underestimated costs and that elsewhere, voters often reject establishing a municipal electric utility because of cost escalation, a long transition and overall reluctance.
“Florida TaxWatch considers the City of Clearwater’s efforts to take over electric utility service from a private company to be a huge financial risk for something that is projected to generate single-digit savings, at best, for the first few years of operation,” Florida TaxWatch President and CEO Jeff Kottkamp said in a written statement.
“No matter how much the City thinks this effort will cost, or how long this process will take, it is going to cost more and take longer to do.”
Residents of St. Petersburg deserve city leadership that uses their tax dollars wisely. Spending more than a half-million dollars on a study that’s already been done in a neighboring city is foolhardy. It’s even more so when considering said neighboring city took a hard pass on dumping Duke after officials there reviewed the study.
The question has been asked and answered. No one needs to throw $590,000 out the window to learn what we already know.
Duke Energy is not perfect. People are feeling the financial squeeze everywhere, and perhaps Duke could do a better job of keeping rates low; maybe they could continue to improve reliability.
But that’s the thing. This entire conversation has put both Clearwater and St. Pete into a powerful negotiating position. Already, Clearwater has secured a commitment from Duke to fund a sweeping community action plan as part of a new 30-year franchise agreement it is currently negotiating.
There is no reason St. Pete officials can’t use the power of negotiation to secure protections from residents. Duke has already said it’s willing to make concessions.
And let us not forget, the shot clock is running out. The city’s current franchise agreement with Duke expires Aug. 1.
The post Clearwater said no to dumping Duke, now St. Pete is just wasting $590K appeared first on Florida Politics – Campaigns & Elections. Lobbying & Government..
