Loopholes a boon for Florida's data centers | Opinion

Loopholes a boon for Florida's data centers | Opinion

News ClipThe Palm Beach Post·FL·3/24/2026

Florida's Senate Bill 484, sent to Gov. Ron DeSantis, requires data centers to pay for their utility infrastructure and mandates reclaimed water use for cooling when feasible. However, the bill lacks a definition for "feasible" regarding water use, creating loopholes for developers. Additionally, it reverses an earlier prohibition on non-disclosure agreements, allowing state agencies to keep company plans secret.

governmentelectricitywaterenvironmental
Gov: Florida Legislature, Gov. Ron DeSantis, Florida's Public Service Commission, water management district, state agencies
The Florida Legislature has passed Senate Bill 484, sending it to Gov. Ron DeSantis for approval. The bill aims to ensure data centers bear the costs of their utility infrastructure, preventing general ratepayers from subsidizing these expenses. It also includes provisions requiring large data centers, consuming over 100,000 gallons of water daily, to use reclaimed water for cooling if deemed "environmentally, economically, and technically feasible. However, Dr. Mark McNees, director of Social and Sustainable Enterprises at Florida State University, highlights significant loopholes in the legislation, particularly concerning the undefined term "feasible." He argues that without clear standards or methodologies for determining feasibility, water management districts could be easily swayed by developers' internal financial analyses, allowing them to avoid using reclaimed water. McNees warns that this could set a statewide precedent, ultimately shifting environmental and utility costs to the public. A second major concern is the reversal of a provision regarding non-disclosure agreements. While the original bill prohibited state agencies from signing NDAs with data center companies, the final version permits them, potentially keeping critical company plans secret for up to a year. This lack of transparency, according to McNees, undermines the bill's stated goal of ratepayer protection, making effective regulation difficult. He proposes legislative fixes for the next session, including defined methodologies for water feasibility determinations and a clear definition of "economically feasible" referenced to public, not developer, costs.