The Next Rate Increase Scam You’re About to Fund
Your Florida Power & Light bill increased 40-50% year-over-year from 2024. Real Florida families watched their monthly bills jump from $195 to $311—a 60% increase in a single month. Storm recovery charges added $30+ per month to actual homes using 2,500-3,000 kWh (not the $12 FPL reports based on their misleading 1,000 kWh benchmark).
January 2026 brings another round of base rate increases from the 2026-2029 settlement the Public Service Commission rubber-stamped in November 2024. Your actual bill—assuming you use what real Florida homes actually consume—will rise from $335+ to $342+ in 2026, climbing to $380+ by 2029.
And now they’re going to do it again. Same playbook. Same commissioners. Same unanimous approval despite overwhelming public opposition.
But this time, it’s data center infrastructure costs.
The pattern is clear from FPL’s 8% rate increase request linked to $73 million in Virginia Gardens substation upgrades. That substation serves Miami-Dade’s data center corridor. Those infrastructure costs—built to serve commercial data centers negotiating sweetheart power deals—will be passed to residential customers who can barely afford their current bills.
This is theft dressed as regulation. And it’s about to get worse.
The Pattern: Regulatory Capture Masquerading as Oversight
The Florida Public Service Commission has five commissioners. All appointed by Governor DeSantis. All confirmed with overwhelming bipartisan Senate support. All demonstrably aligned with utility industry interests over consumer protection.
Mike La Rosa (Chair) was FPL’s “most reliable ally” in the state legislature before his PSC appointment. In 2015, he helped FPL kill legislation that would have strengthened the Office of Public Counsel. In 2019, he helped pass storm-hardening legislation that FPL executives told Wall Street presented a “$35 billion opportunity.” In 2020—just months before his PSC appointment—he pressured the commission to approve a controversial FPL solar program despite staff recommending rejection.
The PSC approved it. Unanimously. Then appointed La Rosa chairman.
Bobby Payne (starting January 2026) is a former Seminole Electric Cooperative executive—he literally worked for the utility industry before his PSC appointment. He also served as state representative sponsoring multiple PSC-focused bills. He currently operates Bobby Payne Consulting LLC.
Ana Ortega (starting January 2026) is a PSC insider—currently Chief Policy Advisor to Mike La Rosa. She previously served as Chief Aide to the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners President and as Utility Regulatory Analyst for the PSC itself.
Gabriella Passidomo Smith called return on equity “the big kahuna” during deliberations on FPL’s $7 billion rate increase request. Her response to approving it? “I didn’t love it, but I voted yes anyway.”
Andrew Giles Fay is a government attorney who previously worked in then-Attorney General Pam Bondi’s office.
This is the commission tasked with protecting Florida consumers from utility overreach.
The approval pattern is consistent: Consumer advocates propose cheaper alternatives—rejected without debate. Public overwhelmingly opposes rate increases—approved unanimously anyway. FPL disconnects 3 million Floridians in 2023 for nonpayment—PSC keeps approving increases.
Food & Water Watch assessed it accurately: “DeSantis PSC has rubber stamped corporate utility wish lists, causing electricity prices to skyrocket.”
Historical context matters here. Before 1979, PSC commissioners were elected by Florida voters. The 1978 Legislature changed the structure to appointed commissioners—insulating them from direct accountability to the people whose bills they approve. The DeSantis era solidified this capture when he replaced independent-minded Commissioner Donald Polmann with Mike La Rosa in 2020.
The pattern is clear. The commissioners have utility industry backgrounds. They approve utility requests unanimously despite public opposition. They serve utility interests while consumers watch bills climb 40-50% year-over-year.
And now they’re preparing to approve data center infrastructure costs.
The Data Center Infrastructure Scam: Four Simple Steps
The mechanism is straightforward. Utilities have perfected this four-step process for passing commercial infrastructure costs to residential customers:
Step 1: Attract data centers with cheap power deals. Utilities court data center operators with competitive electricity rates and promises of reliable infrastructure. The pitch emphasizes Florida’s business-friendly environment, tax incentives, and willing regulators. Data centers require massive power capacity—often 50-100 megawatts for a single facility. Utilities compete aggressively for these contracts because they represent guaranteed large-scale consumption.
Step 2: Infrastructure costs to serve them are massive. Building electrical infrastructure to deliver 50-100 megawatts to a single location requires substantial capital investment. FPL’s Virginia Gardens substation upgrades—$73 million to serve Miami-Dade’s data center corridor—exemplify the scale. New substations, upgraded transmission lines, enhanced grid capacity, backup systems, cooling infrastructure for equipment—all carry hefty price tags.
These aren’t maintenance costs. These are buildout costs specifically required to serve commercial data centers that don’t exist yet. The infrastructure wouldn’t be necessary without the data center development.
Step 3: Costs get passed to residential customers through base rate increases. Utilities categorize these infrastructure investments as “necessary system improvements” or “reliability enhancements.” They file rate increase requests with the PSC, bundling data center infrastructure costs with other capital expenditures. The costs get spread across the entire customer base—residential, commercial, and industrial.
But residential customers pay the lion’s share because they lack negotiating power. Data centers negotiate their rates directly. Large commercial customers have leverage. Residential customers have only the PSC to protect them—and the PSC consistently approves whatever utilities request.
The Virginia Gardens substation serves data centers. But the $73 million cost gets socialized across all FPL customers. You’re subsidizing infrastructure built specifically to serve commercial facilities that negotiated competitive rates while you’re paying ever-increasing residential rates.
Step 4: PSC rubber-stamps the scam because commissioners are utility allies. The approval process is theater. Public hearings allow citizens to voice opposition—which they do, overwhelmingly. Consumer advocates present alternative proposals that would reduce costs—which the PSC rejects without substantive debate. Commissioners vote unanimously to approve utility requests.
Commissioner Passidomo Smith’s candid assessment reveals the dynamic: “I didn’t love it, but I voted yes anyway.”
Why? Because the commissioners come from utility industry backgrounds, get appointed by a governor who prioritizes business interests over consumer protection, and face no electoral accountability for approving rate increases that devastate Florida families.
This pattern will repeat with data center infrastructure costs. FPL will request rate increases to fund electrical infrastructure for data centers. The PSC will approve those increases. Residential customers will see their bills climb further while data centers enjoy the reliable power infrastructure they negotiated for at competitive rates.
The scam works because regulators captured by the industry they’re supposed to regulate consistently choose industry profits over consumer protection.
What You Can Do (Though the System is Rigged)
The PSC public comment process exists—but it’s largely theater. Commissioners approved FPL’s $7 billion rate increase despite overwhelming public opposition. They’ll approve data center infrastructure costs the same way. But documenting opposition matters for the record and potential future reform efforts.
File public comments at every relevant PSC docket addressing FPL rate increases. Be specific: “I oppose passing data center infrastructure costs to residential customers. Data centers negotiate their own rates and should fund their own infrastructure.” Reference your actual rate increases. Include your bill history showing the 40-50% year-over-year jump. Make commissioners acknowledge—on the record—that they’re approving rate increases despite widespread public opposition.
Pressure legislators because PSC commissioners are appointed, not elected. Contact your state representatives and senators. Demand they investigate the relationship between PSC commissioners and the utility industry. Point out Mike La Rosa’s history as FPL’s legislative ally before his PSC appointment. Highlight Bobby Payne’s direct utility employment before his PSC role. Question why Ana Ortega—a PSC insider—gets appointed to the commission she was already advising.
Demand investigation into utility-PSC relationships through formal channels. Request the Florida Attorney General investigate potential conflicts of interest. Ask the Inspector General to audit PSC decision-making patterns. Submit public records requests for communications between PSC commissioners and utility representatives. Transparency matters even when the system is captured.
Support PSC reform by advocating for structural changes. The most significant reform would be returning to elected PSC commissioners—giving Florida voters direct say over who regulates their utility bills. Short of that, demand longer cooling-off periods between utility employment and PSC appointment. Require recusal from votes affecting former employers. Establish independent consumer advocacy with actual enforcement power.
Organize locally because state-level capture doesn’t prevent local action. Attend county commission meetings when data centers seek approval. Demand comprehensive cost analysis including electrical infrastructure requirements and who pays for them. Support local ordinances requiring data center developers to fund their own infrastructure rather than relying on utility ratepayers. Build coalitions with other communities facing similar issues.
The system is rigged. Commissioners with utility industry backgrounds consistently approve utility requests while ignoring public opposition. But documented resistance creates the foundation for eventual reform. When enough Florida families cannot afford their electricity bills—when disconnections climb further above the 3 million FPL cut off in 2023—the political calculus may shift.
Until then, expect data center infrastructure costs to join storm recovery charges, base rate increases, fuel adjustment charges, and solar cost recovery riders on your ever-climbing FPL bill.
The theft continues because the thieves regulate themselves.
For deeper analysis of how utilities pass infrastructure costs to consumers:
- AI Infrastructure Due Diligence is Impossible: Why Planning Boards Should Pause Data Center Approvals Until Aquifer Impact Transparency Exists
- The Cooling Technology Gap: Why South Florida Allows Water-Intensive Data Centers Despite Critical Aquifer Stress
- Water, Power, and Neighbors: What Data Center Proposals Don’t Disclose
For strategic intelligence on infrastructure cost allocation patterns:
For consultations:
From his groundbreaking work on Spiritual Justice, Sovereign AI and AI Convergence, to strategic intelligence on AI Infrastructure development, John is a leading voice on infusing consciousness into AI use and development.
His recent series on AI Infrastructure Justice: Who Actually Pays for AI Development?, examines the state of infrastructure in his native South Florida, and lays out the case for greater awareness in decision makers and consumers alike.
Drawing on 47+ years of expertise in law, complex business systems, and consciousness, John illuminates the issues and obstacles to building a better tomorrow, and lays out paths by which we can get there.
- Why Pressure, Not Greed, Is Driving a Global Extraction Dynamic — from Venezuela to Greenland to Florida Data Centers - February 6, 2026
- Why a Florida AI Bill of Rights Won’t Solve Our Consciousness Crisis - February 3, 2026
- Why AI Is Not Neutral — and Never Was - January 30, 2026
