Hurricane Idalia
On Wednesday, Aug. 30, Hurricane Idalia hit Florida's Big Bend gulf coast as a category 3 storm. Although the full extent of the storm's devastation remains unknown, we think the following can help stabilize credit ratings after an event, as our analysis incorporates the exposure to extreme weather events along with the risk management efforts employed by the state and local governments as well as by the not-for-profit enterprises on which we maintain ratings.
- The governor and president each declared states of emergency, allowing the state to activate its emergency operations procedures and for initial response and recovery costs to be eligible for reimbursement from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
- Furthermore, the governor issued an evacuation order for 21 of the state's 67 counties on Aug. 28, in advance of the storm.
- Finally, the Florida Municipal Electric Association activated its mutual aid network of 2,000 public power utilities across the country to identify personnel and equipment resources to help restore power to customers in the storm's path as quickly as possible.
While the storm surge, wind, and flooding led to property damage in the storm's path, new building codes implemented following Hurricane Andrew in the 1990s, as well as the credit fundamentals we identify for Florida utilities, are also generally similar for the entities we maintain ratings on in the state. These usually include strong levels of liquidity and reserves, well-established procedures for responding to and recovering from extreme weather events, and good expertise and history with FEMA reimbursement documentation requirements. Furthermore, the state has established coordination efforts for state and local resiliency initiatives, and has appropriated more than $400 million for beach restoration and $745 million for coastline resiliency projects since fiscal 2020.
Overview
Florida municipal utilities have experienced stable and generally strengthening credit quality in recent years, supported by continued economic growth and diversification, and substantiated financial metrics. We expect credit quality to remain stable in the state, given our expectation for continued economic growth, existing federal stimulus, and utilities' general propensity for emergency preparedness and financial flexibility, which lead to greater resiliency. However, although our expectation for a national recession over the next 12 months has abated, we expect supply chain disruptions, a protracted inflationary environment, and labor pressures to continue to have an impact on utilities, in addition to ongoing hurricane risk. Moreover, rising insurance premiums for homeowners in Florida could deaccelerate economic growth in some service areas and reduce disposable income for ratepayers over the longer term, if not offset by rising incomes.
S&P Global Ratings maintains 79 ratings on municipal utilities in Florida. Notably, upgrades in Florida significantly outpaced the nation from 2021 to July 2023, with no downgrades during this time frame. We view the state's overall positive rating movement as supported by the state's continued economic and population gains, which drove growth-supported revenues, bolstered financial metrics, and benefited economies of scale. However, while growth has yielded benefits for utilities in the state, it also poses challenges. We view the economic and financial benefits of growth as tempered by management teams' ability to manage growth-driven capital pressures, which can often present credit limitations.
Roughly half of the credits that have experienced positive rating actions since 2021 face the need to manage growth-related pressures, primarily with respect to capital. For instance, the City of Palm Coast's upgraded rating primarily reflects economic growth and diversification, which substantially increased nominal incomes and positively affected the city's market position assessment, whereas the City of Port St. Lucie's upgrade reflects management's ability to maintain very strong financial metrics and affordable rates despite growth-related demand pressures. Both cities, however, will need to manage large capital programs relative to their size. Palm Coast's five-year capital program cost increased by approximately 75% from 2016 to 2021, from about $70 million to $120 million, driven primarily by growth and demand, while Port St. Lucie's anticipated capital costs more than doubled from 2017 to 2022, driven by capital repairs and improvements.
Credit Fundamentals
Potential Challenges
- Floridian utilities possess generally strong financial metrics. As of August 2023, the median debt service coverage in the state was about 2.22x, with median reserve levels of $43.7 million, or about 510 days' worth of operating expenses. Overall, utilities in Florida maintain higher levels of median nominal cash than utilities we rate in about 75% of other states, and about 83% higher than utilities we rate in noncoastal states. We believe this underscores Floridian utilities' ability to weather extreme weather events, as we saw following Hurricane Ian
- Median Operational Management Assessment (OMA) score of good, which we believe somewhat mitigates the state's elevated physical risk factors, such as hurricanes
- Median rating level in the 'AA' category, higher than the national median of 'AA-', which can be attributed to not only financial metrics, but also strong economic factors. About 92% of Florida utilities have an overall economic profile score of '2' or better, under our criteria, compared with about 65% nationwide, due to credit-supportive economic factors such as access to a broad and diverse local economy
- Chronic and acute physical risks stemming from extreme weather and climate-related changes require adequate disaster recovery-related reserves, in addition to infrastructure resiliency planning
- Robust population growth will continue to put additional pressure on existing infrastructure needs, including those related to aging infrastructure, climate resiliency, and regulatory requirements
- Average utility bills are about 2.22% of incomes in the state, slightly more affordable than the national average of 2.3%, which we view as generally supportive of rate-setting flexibility. However, we believe affordability pressures are likely to increase as utilities manage regulatory requirements, such as per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS) testing and treatment requirements, lead line replacement, and other local capital needs. The U.S. EPA estimates that the 20-year financing need for Florida public utilities is about $26.7 billion (2021 dollars), including for small, medium, and large utilities, equal to about $1,230 per capita (2021 estimate). However, this is lower than the two other more populous states, including California and Texas, which will require about $2,100 per capita (EPA, California U.S. 2021 Census, Texas U.S. 2021 Census)
What We Are Watching
Florida has a strong institutional framework in place to augment the private insurance sector, including via the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund. Nevertheless, in the past two years some property and casualty insurers have discontinued policy coverage in Florida, in part as a result of rising insured losses due to natural catastrophes (source: Insurance Services Office; S&P Global Ratings). For example, Farmers Insurance recently announced that it will no longer offer coverage in Florida, while AAA and American International Group, Inc. (AIG) will not renew some higher exposed home and auto insurance policies.
Although recent state legislation could help stabilize the private insurance market, we believe that rising premiums and difficulty obtaining insurance could have a negative impact on economic growth over the long term if rising costs for home ownership reduce disposable incomes for existing Florida ratepayers, adding to affordability pressures over the longer term. We believe that long-term planning and supportive rate structures, such as those that promote cost recovery and revenue stability, will continue to be fundamental for utilities facing affordability pressures and large capital programs.
Spotlight On Environmental, Social, Governance Factors
Florida utilities contend with various acute and chronic physical climate risks, including severe weather such as hurricanes, sea-level rise, and flooding are common considerations within the state's portfolio. We assess each credit's financial flexibility and planning initiatives in place to prepare for, respond to, and recover from the risks to which they are exposed. Following Hurricane Ian (category 4), utilities are generally well-prepared to respond to severe weather events, with no downgrades for any utility we rate, following the catastrophe. We note that Florida utilities are generally well-prepared with comprehensive disaster plans, as well as with management teams that are typically well-versed in working with emergency management agencies, such the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Salt-water intrusion due to sea-level rise is also a growing concern, given saltwater can move inland along coastal rivers or penetrate underground aquifers, driving up water treatment charges. Notably, helping to offset this risk is the rising number of water reclamation projects in the state, which can reduce overpumping and replenish aquifers to offset salt-water intrusion. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, Florida is a national leader in the reuse of reclaimed water, making up 35% of all water supply projects (American Society of Civil Engineers; 2021).
Despite the implementation of the EPA's federal cyber security plan for water utilities pausing on July 1, 2022, Florida state agencies and local governments became subject to amendments made to Florida's State Cybersecurity Act. The act imposes certain ransomware reporting obligations and prohibits entities from paying or complying with cyber randoms. It also requires cyber security training for all new governmental hires, among other operational requirements. Although the state's bill impact analysis indicates these initiatives will likely have a negative fiscal impact on utilities, it also outlines grant opportunities through the state for technical assistance, along with dedicated funding sources allocated toward developing cyber security training government employees are required to take. We view this expansion of the cyber security act as having favorable credit attributes for the portfolio, as it has a structured and supportive framework for utilities to mitigate cyber risk.
Florida Municipal Utilities Data
Chart 1
Table 1
Florida water and sewer utilities--ratings list | ||
---|---|---|
Entity | Rating | Outlook |
Leesburg | AA- | Stable |
Fort Pierce Util Auth | A | Stable |
Clearwater | AA+ | Stable |
Florida Keys Aque Auth | AA- | Stable |
Pinellas Cnty | AA+ | Stable |
Tampa Bay Wtr | AA+ | Stable |
Brevard Cnty | AA | Stable |
Broward Cnty | AA+ | Stable |
Cape Coral | A+ | Negative |
Clearwater | AA+ | Stable |
Lehigh Utility System | A+ | Stable |
Hillsborough Cnty | AA+ | Stable |
JEA | AA+ | Stable |
Miami Dade County | AA- | Stable |
Oviedo | AA | Stable |
Palm Bay | AA- | Stable |
Palm Beach County | AAA | Stable |
Pasco County | AA+ | Stable |
Seacoast Util Auth | AA+ | Stable |
Tallahassee | AA | Stable |
Auburndale | A+ | Stable |
Cocoa | AA+ | Stable |
Crestview | A+ | Stable |
Davie | AA | Stable |
Fort Lauderdale | AA+ | Stable |
Oakland Pk | AA | Stable |
Seminole Cnty | AA+ | Stable |
St Augustine | AA- | Stable |
St Johns Cnty | AAA | Stable |
Tampa | AAA | Stable |
Winter Springs | AA- | Stable |
Charlotte Cnty | AA- | Stable |
Deltona | A+ | Stable |
Emerald Coast Util Auth | A | Stable |
Fort Myers | A+ | Stable |
Martin Cnty | AA | Stable |
Palm Coast | AA- | Stable |
Polk County | AA+ | Stable |
Sarasota County | AA+ | Stable |
Tohopekaliga Wtr Auth | AAA | Stable |
West Palm Beach | AA+ | Stable |
Winter Haven | AA- | Stable |
North Miami Beach | A+ | Stable |
Miami Beach | AA- | Positive |
Lee County | AA+ | Stable |
Palm Beach Cnty Solid Waste Auth | AA+ | Stable |
Hillsborough Cnty | AA+ | Stable |
Miami Dade County | AA | Stable |
North Sumter County Utility Dependent District | AA- | Stable |
Bay Laurel Center Community Development District | A+ | Stable |
Polk City | A | Stable |
Miami Beach | AA- | Stable |
Dunedin | AA- | Stable |
Dunedin | AA | Stable |
North Sumter County Utility Dependent District | A | Stable |
Orlando | AAA | Stable |
Venice | AA | Stable |
Tarpon Springs | AA- | Stable |
Fernandina Beach | AA- | Stable |
St Lucie Cnty | A+ | Stable |
Riviera Beach Util Spl Dist | A+ | Stable |
Holley-Navarre Wtr Sys Inc | A+ | Stable |
Village Ctr Comnty Dev Dist | AA- | Stable |
Village Ctr Comnty Dev Dist | AA | Stable |
East Cent Regl Wastewtr Facs Operating Brd | AA+ | Stable |
Port St Lucie | AA | Stable |
Riviera Beach | A+ | Stable |
Orange Cnty | AAA | Stable |
Ocoee | AA+ | Stable |
Lynn Haven | AA- | Negative |
Miramar | AAA | Stable |
Central Sumter Utility Company LLC | A | Stable |
Miami Dade County | AA+ | Stable |
Wildwood Utility Dependent District | A- | Stable |
Immokalee Wtr & Swr Dist | A+ | Stable |
Polk Regional Water Cooperative | BBB+ | Stable |
Lakewood Ranch Stewardship District | A | Stable |
Fort Lauderdale | AAA | Stable |
Brevard Cnty | AA+ | Stable |
This report does not constitute a rating action.
Primary Credit Analysts: | Chelsy Shipman, San Francisco 2148711417; chelsy.shipman@spglobal.com |
Jenny Poree, San Francisco + 1 (415) 371 5044; jenny.poree@spglobal.com | |
Nora G Wittstruck, New York + (212) 438-8589; nora.wittstruck@spglobal.com |
No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software, or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced, or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees, or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.
Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses, and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment, and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors, and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses.
To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw, or suspend such acknowledgement at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal, or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.
S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain nonpublic information received in connection with each analytical process.
S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.spglobal.com/ratings (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.spglobal.com/usratingsfees.