Two bills meant to address the proliferation of large-scale data centers in Florida just cleared their first hurdles in the Legislature’s upper chamber — with concerns from industry figures and lawmakers about unintended impacts.
Members of the Senate Regulated Industries Committee voted to advance the measures (SB 484, SB 1118) which together are meant to establish a framework for how the facilities can operate and be billed for power and water usage, and how the state and local governments regulate them.
Tackling the issue is a priority for the bills’ sponsor, Miami Springs Republican Sen. Bryan Ávila, who described his legislation as a compromise between safeguarding Florida’s environment and residents while upholding the state’s open-for-business policy.
“This is a balance between making sure that we are still leading the way on tech, but also laying a foundation and protecting our consumers,” he said. “Particularly, (it’s) making sure that our local governments in rural areas have a voice and a seat at the table with that discussion.”
SB 484, which advanced on an 8-0 vote, would prohibit state and local agencies from signing nondisclosure agreements that keep the public from learning details about proposed data center developments, making any such provisions void and subjecting violating agencies to civil fines of up to $1,000 per infraction.
It would require the Florida Public Service Commission to set tariffing rules for “large load customers” of power companies, so they pay their full cost of service with no cost-shifting to other ratepayers.
Further, the measure would create a water-permitting framework for large-scale data centers, requiring that water be reclaimed — where feasible — and that hearings must be held for large water-allocation permits and permit modifications.
Ávila said many other states have seen a “spike in electricity demand” from data centers and other “super-users,” citing a recent Bloomberg analysis that found some consumers’ bills skyrocketed by as much as 267% over the past five years.
SB 1118, which advanced 7-1 with a “no” vote from the panel’s Vice Chair, independent Hollywood Sen. Jason Pizzo, would provide something of a counterbalance to SB 484’s potentially business-repellent provisions.
It would create a new public records exemption allowing local governments to keep confidential information about a company’s plans and interest in locating a data center for up to 12 months, if requested by the company.
The bill also includes a five-year provision — set to sunset in October 2031, unless extended — that would make a data center company’s “proprietary confidential business information” confidential until it becomes public or the company stops treating it as proprietary.
Pizzo argued that under SB 1118 as it is written, local officials would be restricted from informing one data center business of another’s plans to construct a facility across the street from them — a potential quagmire that could harm both the businesses in question and the communities where they operate.
Ávila said he’d be willing to work with Pizzo to address the issue. Pizzo demurred.
“My fear is, I’ve said yes to things (with plans to) work on it in the future,” he said. “Things have never changed.”
Several industry representatives spoke in favor of Ávila’s legislation, though some asked for a few tweaks.
John Brown, whose Florida-headquartered DCIP Group is building a massive data center in Kansas that he said will be energy- and water-independent, commended Ávila for his work on SB 484, but asked for “a simple carve-out” for self-sufficient projects.
“That distinction allows Florida to protect its infrastructure while still welcoming innovation and privately financed, privately powered and infrastructure-neutral” companies, he said.
Adam Basford, a lobbyist for Associated Industries of Florida, praised the bill but asked that a few changes be made to ensure it doesn’t conflict with the state’s “standard economic-development procedures.”
Others vocalizing or signaling support included AARP Florida, the Consumer Energy Alliance, Florida Association of Counties and Solar United Neighbors.
But not everyone was for it. Turner Loesel, policy analyst for the James Madison Institute, warned against “unnecessary regulatory overreach.” Data centers are an increasingly necessary commodity that power everything from streaming services and fintech to artificial intelligence, he said, and Florida can either gain from their inevitable ubiquity or see other states do so.
Loesel stressed that his organization supports “market-based approaches” to curb potential harms to Florida’s environment and economy, but said SB 484 exceeds those protections and “singles out one industry” for restrictions not applied to others.
The last thing Florida should do now, he said, is send the message that it’s “closed for business,” adding that “neighboring states aren’t waiting idly.” He pointed to Atlanta’s 2024 boom that placed it atop the domestic data center market, Meta’s choice of Louisiana for a $10 billion campus the size of Disneyland, with 500 high-paying jobs, and Energy Storage Solutions’ groundbreaking last month on a $19.2 billion data center in North Carolina that could have instead risen in Florida.
“Other states are rolling out the red carpet,” he said, “while we roll out the red tape.”
SB 484 and SB 1118 will next go to the Senate Community Affairs Committee, after which they would have one more stop before reaching a floor vote.
A House analog (HB 1517) to SB 484 by North Miami Democratic Rep. Dotie Joseph awaits a hearing before the first of three committees to which it was referred.
SB 1118 has no House companion.