way to power
a better
a better way to
power st. pete
st. pete
Public power puts control back in the hands of the people
Public power puts control back in the hands of the people
Frequently Asked Questions
The Basics
-
Investor-Owned - An investor-owned utility (IOU) is a for-profit company, they are accountable to private shareholders and investors. Decision-making is solely to generate returns for shareholders.
City-Owned - City-owned, or sometimes called municipal-owned, is a publicly owned utility is a not-for-profit entity owned by taxpayers and run as a division of government (city, state or federal) or an independent public utility district. Decision-making is based on the community feedback and needs.
Cooperative - A cooperative utility, also known as an electric co-op, is a private, not-for-profit provider of power owned by the people it serves. Members have equal decision-making power or can elect a board of directors to represent them.
-
Duke Energy is a private, investor-owned utility that generates profits for shareholders.
A St. Pete public utility would have no shareholders. Its revenue could be reinvested into the electric system, and decisions about rates, reliability, resilience and clean energy would be made locally.
Residents would also elect three members of the utility’s five-member governing board, giving the public a direct voice that Duke customers do not have today.
-
Absolutely.
Public power is already working in nearly 2,000 communities across the country, including more than 30 cities in Florida.
The transition would require careful planning, financing and experienced professionals, but there is a clear path forward. If voters approve the amendment, the city would create the utility, establish its governing board and acquire the local electric system.
St. Pete would not be inventing something new. We would be joining communities across the country that already own their power and make energy decisions locally.
-
Yes.
The last city in Florida to successfully transitioned from an investor-owned utility to a city-owned electric system was Winter Park, which approved a public electric utility by more than 69% of the vote. St. Pete can build on that experience and the lessons of public utilities across the country.
-
No. Public power utilities across the country operate reliably and maintain electric service as a core priority. Any transition would be planned to maintain continuity of service.
-
Public power would give St. Pete more tools to keep electric service affordable, reliable and responsive to local needs.
Because the utility would not have shareholders, more revenue could stay in the system and be used to maintain the grid, improve resilience, expand cleaner energy and help control costs. Customers would also gain more transparency and a direct local voice through public meetings, city oversight and resident-elected utility board members.
Instead of major decisions being made by a distant corporation, they would be made here in St. Pete by leaders the public can see, question and hold accountable.
The details
-
St. Pete would not need to build an entire electric utility workforce from scratch before taking ownership.
When Winter Park transitioned to public power, it hired an experienced utility contractor to operate and maintain the electric system. The contractor provided trained lineworkers, equipment and technical expertise while the city oversaw the utility and gradually developed its own staff. Winter Park used this arrangement for roughly a decade before bringing more of the work in-house.
St. Pete could take a similar phased approach. The city could contract with an experienced utility operator during the transition while recruiting qualified Duke employees and other experienced utility workers, developing apprenticeships and building a permanent local workforce over time.
Existing city departments could also support functions such as finance, fleet management and similar roles.
The workers and expertise needed to maintain the grid would not disappear. Public ownership would give St. Pete the flexibility to rely on experienced professionals immediately while creating more locally based, publicly accountable jobs for the future.
-
Publicly owned utilities are typically governed by local officials or an appointed board, with oversight mechanisms designed to ensure accountability to the community. Day-to-day operations are handled by utility professionals.
Our ballot language requires a five-member governing board, including three members elected directly by residents.
-
The existing infrastructure would continue to be used. A public takeover generally involves acquiring and operating the current system, rather than building a new one from scratch.
The money
-
St. Pete would not need to pay the full cost upfront or take the money from funding for parks, roads or other city services.
The city could issue utility revenue bonds to purchase and improve the electric system. Those bonds would be repaid over time through the revenue already generated by customers’ electric bills, not through property taxes.
This is the same basic approach Winter Park used to purchase its electric system. Clearwater’s independent feasibility study also modeled financing the acquisition, startup costs and system improvements through long-term utility debt while still projecting rates below Duke’s.
Instead of electric payments helping fund shareholder profits, that revenue could pay for a locally owned system that ultimately belongs to the people of St. Pete.
-
Public power would give St. Pete more tools to keep electric service affordable, reliable and responsive to local needs.
Because the utility would not have shareholders, more revenue could stay in the system and be used to maintain the grid, improve resilience, expand cleaner energy and help control costs. Customers would also gain more transparency and a direct local voice through public meetings, city oversight and resident-elected utility board members.
Instead of major decisions being made by a distant corporation, they would be made here in St. Pete by leaders the public can see, question and hold accountable.
-
Public power would be financed through the electric utility, not through higher property taxes.
The city could issue utility revenue bonds and repay them over time using the revenue already collected through electric bills. The utility could also continue contributing to city services through payments similar to the taxes and franchise fees Duke pays today.
St. Pete’s independent feasibility study is now examining the purchase price, financing, operating costs and potential impact on customer rates. Its purpose is to determine how the city could transition to public power while protecting taxpayers and delivering affordable, reliable electric service.
-
Because Duke has a lot to lose.
St. Pete is one of Duke Energy’s largest and most valuable markets in Florida. Every year, residents and businesses provide the company with a reliable stream of revenue and profits. If voters choose public power, Duke would lose control of that monopoly territory and the decades of future earnings that come with it.
That gives Duke every incentive to inflate the risks, demand a high price and threaten a prolonged legal fight. The transition will require serious planning and negotiation, but the company’s power to make leaving difficult is not a reason to remain trapped indefinitely.
St. Pete’s independent feasibility study will determine the real costs and challenges. Our decision should be based on those facts and what is best for residents, not solely on warnings from the corporation whose monopoly and profits are at stake.
the concerns
-
The feasibility study and the ballot initiative do different things. The study will provide detailed information about the costs, benefits, and logistics of public power. The ballot initiative ensures residents ultimately get a say in whether St. Petersburg should move forward.
Collecting and verifying thousands of petitions takes time, so starting now keeps the option open while the City completes its analysis. The study will help inform the decision, but we believe voters should be the ones to make it.
-
Public power is not based on blind trust. It is based on public accountability.
Duke’s customers cannot vote for its leadership, attend its board meetings or remove executives who make bad decisions.
With a St. Pete utility, major decisions would be made locally and subject to public meetings, open records and oversight by city government. Residents would also directly elect three members of the utility board.
That means customers could question decision-makers, organize for changes and hold local leaders accountable at the ballot box. The proposed amendment even allows residents to seek enforcement in court if the city fails to carry out the voters’ decision. A public utility will belong to us, operate in public and give residents real tools to demand better.
That’s more than a symbolic difference. Public access to the utility’s decisionmakers means they are vulnerable to public pressure. That pressure can be used to make the utility function in the best interest of the community.
-
A city-owned utility would not face a major hurricane alone.
Public power utilities operate a nationwide mutual-aid network that sends lineworkers, tree crews, equipment and other resources wherever they are needed. Before Hurricanes Debby, Helene and Milton struck Florida in 2024, more than 4,300 workers from across the country answered calls to help Florida’s public power communities restore service.
After Hurricane Helene, Florida public utilities restored power to 95% of affected public power customers within 48 hours. After Hurricane Milton, 95% were restored within four days, with assistance from public power crews and contractors across the country.
A St. Pete utility could prepare year-round, strengthen the local grid and call on this same network when a storm overwhelms local crews. The difference is that restoration priorities, resilience investments and public communication would be accountable to the community experiencing the outages, not distant executives.
-
The City’s water billing problems are real, and residents deserve a system that is accurate, transparent and easy to navigate.
Those problems are also a reason to demand stronger public oversight, not to give up local control. Following public pressure, City Council changed the ordinance and temporarily stopped water shutoffs and late fees while changing protocols around how billing problems were addressed. That kind of direct public accountability would be much harder to achieve with an investor-owned utility.
The City has also been working to replace its outdated NaviLine software. A city-owned electric utility would not simply be added to the existing water billing operation without a plan. Billing systems, staffing, customer service and consumer protections would all need to be evaluated as part of the feasibility study and tested before a transition.
-
Because Duke has a lot to lose.
St. Pete is one of Duke Energy’s largest and most valuable markets in Florida. Every year, residents and businesses provide the company with a reliable stream of revenue and profits. If voters choose public power, Duke would lose control of that monopoly territory and the decades of future earnings that come with it.
That gives Duke every incentive to inflate the risks, demand a high price and threaten a prolonged legal fight. The transition will require serious planning and negotiation, but the company’s power to make leaving difficult is not a reason to remain trapped indefinitely.
St. Pete’s independent feasibility study will determine the real costs and challenges. Our decision should be based on those facts and what is best for residents, not solely on warnings from the corporation whose monopoly and profits are at stake.
-
Public power would be financed through the electric utility, not through higher property taxes.
The city could issue utility revenue bonds and repay them over time using the revenue already collected through electric bills. The utility could also continue contributing to city services through payments similar to the taxes and franchise fees Duke pays today.
St. Pete’s independent feasibility study is now examining the purchase price, financing, operating costs and potential impact on customer rates. Its purpose is to determine how the city could transition to public power while protecting taxpayers and delivering affordable, reliable electric service.
-
St. Pete would not need to build an entire electric utility workforce from scratch before taking ownership.
When Winter Park transitioned to public power, it hired an experienced utility contractor to operate and maintain the electric system. The contractor provided trained lineworkers, equipment and technical expertise while the city oversaw the utility and gradually developed its own staff. Winter Park used this arrangement for roughly a decade before bringing more of the work in-house.
St. Pete could take a similar phased approach. The city could contract with an experienced utility operator during the transition while recruiting qualified Duke employees and other experienced utility workers, developing apprenticeships and building a permanent local workforce over time.
Existing city departments could also support functions such as finance, fleet management and similar roles.
The workers and expertise needed to maintain the grid would not disappear. Public ownership would give St. Pete the flexibility to rely on experienced professionals immediately while creating more locally based, publicly accountable jobs for the future.
public power benefits
-
The non-profit model keeps costs low partially by removing the requirement to generate profits for shareholders or investors.
-
Local officials are directly accountable to the community they serve. Individuals voicing concerns at municipal utility board meetings are protected rights by the first amendment.
Public access to the utility’s decisionmakers means they are vulnerable to public pressure.
-
City-owned electric utilities often contribute to the city’s general revenues as a payment in lieu of taxes. This contribution helps to offset property taxes.
Utilities also contribute to the community by creating jobs, improving infrastructure and supporting the local economy.
-
Public records and open meetings allow residents to review reporting and details about utility spending, projects, and performance metrics.
Customers of a public utility are encouraged to participate in meetings where they can share their input to help shape how the utility is managed.
how can we do this?
1.) Collect Petition Signatures
We’re collecting signatures from St. Pete voters to put public power on the 2028 ballot. To qualify, we need more than 16,000 verified petitions.
2.) earn a place on the 2028 Ballot
Once enough petitions are verified, St. Pete voters will get the opportunity to choose whether our city should begin the transition to a publicly owned electric utility.
3.) St. Pete Voters Decide
If a majority votes for public power, residents will have chosen local ownership and accountability over the current investor-owned system.
4.) Create a Utility for st. pete
The city will put the voters’ decision into action by creating a new electric utility focused on lower costs, stronger reliability, resilience and a cleaner energy future.
Residents will elect representatives to its governing board, and the city will begin acquiring the local electric system.
how can we do this?
1.) Collect Petition Signatures
We’re collecting signatures from St. Pete voters to put public power on the 2028 ballot. To qualify, we need more than 16,000 verified petitions.
2.) earn a place on the 2028 Ballot
Once enough petitions are verified, St. Pete voters will get the opportunity to choose whether our city should begin the transition to a publicly owned electric utility.
3.) St. Pete Voters Decide
If a majority votes for public power, residents will have chosen local ownership and accountability over the current investor-owned system.
4.) Create a Utility for st. pete
The city will put the voters’ decision into action by creating a new electric utility focused on lower costs, stronger reliability, resilience and a cleaner energy future.
Residents will elect representatives to its governing board, and the city will begin acquiring the local electric system.