Revisiting Efforts to Deregulate Florida’s Electric Power Market What We Learned from Texas' Blackouts

Florida’s economy depends in large part on the availability of reliable and affordable electric power. Like most states, Florida has a regulated energy market that considers electric power to be an essential service for its economic well-being. The interests of electric utilities and their customers are addressed by the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) which sets reasonable rates and standards for reliability, ensures quality of services, and protects the consumers. Good regulatory policy promotes the alignments of those interests.

Two years ago, a constitutional amendment was proposed that, if approved by 60 percent of the voters, would have required Florida to “deregulate” its retail market for electric power. Florida’s IOUs would have been required to sell their generation assets to companies not regulated by the PSC. In a deregulated market, the price consumers pay for the transmission and distribution of electricity is generally still regulated but the price they pay for the actual electric power generated is not; customers choose their electricity provider from among any number of retail electricity suppliers available in their area who procure from unregulated generating companies the power that those retail electricity suppliers sell to customers.

In Texas, a 2016 pricing analysis affirmed previous findings that Texans living in deregulated areas had historically paid more for electricity, on average, than Texans living in areas exempt from deregulation. All told, Texans living in deregulated areas would have saved nearly $25 billion dollars in lower residential electricity bills from 2002 through 2014 had they paid the same average prices during that period as Texans living outside deregulation. This “lost savings” amounts to more than $5,100 for a typical household.

The failure of Texas’s market-driven, deregulated electric power network begs the questions “what if the ballot proposal had passed review by the Florida Supreme Court” and “what if Florida voters had voted to deregulate Florida’s electric power network?”

Documents to download

Previous Article The Backbone of the Economy: How Small Businesses in Florida Have Fared During the Pandemic
Next Article State COVID-19 Restrictions & the Road Back to Economic Normal
Print
8581
0Upvote 0Downvote
«December 2025»
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
24252627282930
1234
OH, SNAP! Federal Policy Changes Threaten the Stability of Florida's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

OH, SNAP! Federal Policy Changes Threaten the Stability of Florida's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

Administered by the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA)’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides funds to help low-income households afford low-cost, nutritious meals. In July 2025, President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 (the OBBB Act), tightening SNAP policies that determine eligibility, benefits, and program administration. Florida TaxWatch undertakes this independent research project to better understand how the upcoming changes in SNAP requirements will impact Florida’s budget and its ability to provide much needed food assistance to needy Floridians.

Read more
567
891011121314
15
2025 How Florida Counties Compare

2025 How Florida Counties Compare

This report compares the revenue and expenditure profiles of Florida’s 67 counties to give taxpayers an overview of how their local government stacks up with the rest of the state.

Read more
16
The Fiscal and Economic Impacts of Nova Southeastern University on Florida’s Economy

The Fiscal and Economic Impacts of Nova Southeastern University on Florida’s Economy

NSU generated an estimated $293.1 million in state and local taxes within the Tri-County region in FY 2024-25 and an estimated $305.1 million in state and local taxes in FY 2024-25.

Read more
17
Transferring Utility Profits to a Municipality's General Fund Increases the Risk of Undercapitalization of Water Assets and Violate Taxpayer Accountability

Transferring Utility Profits to a Municipality's General Fund Increases the Risk of Undercapitalization of Water Assets and Violate Taxpayer Accountability

Setting water utility rates that incorporate the recovery of the costs associated with standard operating expenses and debt obligations is essential to ensuring the short-term and longer-term financial stability of the utility. Once these costs are covered, many publicly owned utilities make transfers to the General Fund (a practice known as “sweeping”) ostensibly to help pay for governmental services that do not generate revenue (e.g., roadway maintenance, public safety, etc.) and to help keep property taxes lower. Keeping property taxes low often means higher municipal utility rates to balance the general budget, a habitual practice that burdens utility customers with cross-subsidies and normalizes underinvestment in infrastructure.

Read more
18
Florida Sheriffs’ Offices Staffing Analysis

Florida Sheriffs’ Offices Staffing Analysis

In May 2025, Florida TaxWatch and the Florida Sheriff Association conducted a joint survey to local sheriff offices to learn more about law enforcement’s workforce challenges.

Read more
192021
22232425262728
2930311234

Archive