Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utility Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge St. Petersburg to study public power as Duke Energy contract nears renewal
Summary
Dozens of residents told the City Council that high electricity bills, outage concerns and poor utility responsiveness warrant a feasibility study on publicly owned power ahead of the 2026 contract renewal with Duke Energy; council heard related complaints about high water bills and requested further staff follow‑up.
Dozens of residents urged St. Petersburg City Council on Tuesday to fund a feasibility study into a municipal power utility ahead of Duke Energy’s contract renewal next year. Multiple speakers said rising bills and service problems are pushing the city to evaluate alternatives.
During open forum, Kathy Harrelson said rooftop solar has increased her bills rather than reduced them, and that “Duke won’t talk to me about it.” Cliff Stevenson asked the council for a feasibility study on the upcoming contract renewal and said the change would be worth exploring because other Florida municipalities have municipal utilities. Dalton Reynolds told the council St. Pete is not on track to meet its 100% renewable goal for 2035 and “our relationship with Duke Energy is holding us back,” urging the council to follow Clearwater’s lead and fund a study.
Why it matters: The city’s contract with Duke Energy expires in 2026. A feasibility study would examine cost, operations, workforce implications and whether municipal ownership could support the city’s climate and affordability goals. Speakers linked utility bills to health and housing stress: Michelle Lindsey, who said she lives with chronic lung disease, described frequent outages and said reliable power is a health issue for residents.
Council members and staff did not take immediate action on the public‑comment request but heard repeated calls for a study. Council discussion during the meeting focused on other immediate items — disaster recovery, Tropicana Field repairs and redevelopment reviews — and several members said they would want more information before launching a new, expensive municipal study.
What residents said: James Locosio and Matthew Weidner also used open forum to press the city on unrelated utility complaints — in their cases, unexplained high water bills — asking the council for better explanations and more substantive follow up on the Stantec report. Speakers portrayed the issues as two separate utility problems but with a shared theme: residents seeking greater transparency, technical review and a city response that is not limited to standard customer service channels.
Next steps: The comments went into the public record and were heard by the full council. Several council members suggested staff briefings and noted existing deadlines tied to the Duke contract; others said they would prefer a staged approach (initial staff analysis followed by a possible funded feasibility study). The council did not adopt a motion to fund a study during the meeting.
Ending: Council members urged staff to track and report back on feasibility‑study options and on the unresolved customer billing cases; residents said they would continue to press the council for formal study and concrete timelines.
