[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 145 (Tuesday, September 15, 2026)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RATEPAYER PROTECTION ACT
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 9340) to amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of
1978 to establish a Federal standard relating to the recovery of the
full, incremental costs of upgrades that serve large-load customers,
and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 9340
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Ratepayer Protection Act''.
SEC. 2. FEDERAL STANDARD RELATING TO LARGE-LOAD CUSTOMERS.
(a) Federal Standard Relating to Large-load Customers.--
Section 111(d) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act
of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2621(d)) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(22) Standards for large-load customers.--
``(A) Recovery of full, incremental cost of upgrades.--A
rate charged, or entered into, by an electric utility for
providing electric service to a large-load customer shall be
designed to recover from the large-load customer the full,
incremental cost of any generation, transmission, or
distribution upgrade necessary to serve the load of such
large-load customer, including in the event of such large-
load customer terminating a contract or other agreement with
the electric utility pertaining to the sale of electric
energy, or otherwise ceasing the purchase of electric energy
from the electric utility.
``(B) Financial assurances and contributions.--Before
making any generation, transmission, or distribution upgrade
that is necessary to serve the load of a large-load customer,
an electric utility shall require the large-load customer
provide to the electric utility financial assurances or
contributions to cover the cost of such upgrade.
``(C) Large-load customer defined.--In this paragraph, the
term `large-load customer' means a non-residential electric
consumer that, on or after the date of the enactment of this
paragraph, requests to enter into, or enters into, a contract
or other agreement pertaining to the sale of electric energy
for one or more facilities that--
``(i) require electric energy primarily to operate
information technology infrastructure and related systems
pertaining to data storage and computational applications and
services; and
``(ii) have, in the aggregate, a peak electric demand of
100 megawatts or more at a single site or campus.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Obligations to consider and determine.--Section 112 of
the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C.
2622) is amended--
(A) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
``(9)(A) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment
of this paragraph, each State regulatory authority (with
respect to each electric utility for which the State has
ratemaking authority) and each nonregulated electric utility
shall commence consideration under section 111, or set a
hearing date for consideration, with respect to the standard
established by paragraph (22) of section 111(d).
``(B) Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of
this paragraph, each State regulatory authority (with respect
to each electric utility for which the State has ratemaking
authority) and each nonregulated electric utility shall
complete the consideration and make the determination under
section 111 with respect to the standard established by
paragraph (22) of section 111(d).'';
(B) in subsection (c)--
(i) by striking ``subsection (b)(2)'' and inserting
``subsection (b)''; and
(ii) by inserting ``In the case of the standard established
by paragraph (22) of section 111(d), the reference contained
in this subsection to the date of enactment of this Act shall
be deemed to be a reference to the date of enactment of that
paragraph (22).'' after ``paragraph (21).''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Other Prior State Actions.--Subsections (b) and (c)
shall not apply to the standard established by paragraph (22)
of section 111(d) in the case of any electric utility in a
State if, before the date of enactment of this subsection--
``(1) the State has implemented for the electric utility
the standard (or a comparable standard);
``(2) the State regulatory authority for the State or the
relevant nonregulated electric utility has conducted a
proceeding to consider implementation of the standard (or a
comparable standard) for the electric utility; or
``(3) the State legislature has voted on the implementation
of the standard (or a comparable standard) for the electric
utility.''.
(2) Prior and pending proceedings.--Section 124 of the
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C.
2634) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``In the
case of the standard established by paragraph (22) of section
111(d), the reference contained in this section to the date
of enactment of this Act shall be deemed to be a reference to
the date of enactment of that paragraph (22).''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
General Leave
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.R. 9340.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection
Act, sponsored by my colleague and friend from Colorado, Congressman
Evans.
This bill encourages States to protect our neighbors and small
businesses from footing the bill for infrastructure investments needed
for the AI race, while protecting existing State authorities. The
evidence is clear: When States have the proper processes in place to
protect households, interconnecting large-load data centers have
positive benefits for the communities in which they reside.
Data center growth can be a catalyst for investment in an aging grid,
strengthening the tax base to fund essential public services and anchor
tenants for utilities that lower rates for everyone else.
Electricity demand is growing at a pace not seen since World War II,
and communities are rightly concerned about what this might mean for
their daily lives.
As this industry continues to develop, I want to be absolutely clear
that we need it to develop here at home and not in China. H.R. 9340
takes action on behalf of our constituents so we may keep costs low
while ensuring the U.S. leads in the next-generation economy.
If we cede the race for AI dominance to China, then China will set
the standards for future technology. This bill strikes the right
balance of providing a modest but important level of accountability as
we continue to support this vital industry.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Colorado again for his tireless
bipartisan leadership on this issue. He is bringing together both sides
of the aisle on a critical issue. I would say, we were home, working in
our districts in August. We listened to our constituents, and we are
here today based on what we heard, taking action here in Washington,
D.C. That is how our system is supposed to work.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act.
Everyone knows that data centers are helping drive electricity prices
to record highs this year. Just in the mid-Atlantic over the past few
years, data centers have increased electric bills by over $30 billion.
By and large, it has not been the data centers that have been footing
the bill. It has been our constituents.
This problem is happening across the Nation, from Texas to
California, from Florida to Washington State. It doesn't matter if you
are in a red State or a blue State. Your prices have gone up.
Americans, Mr. Speaker, are concerned about what data centers and Big
Tech's push for more AI means for their communities, jobs, property
values, and the future. Electricity prices are skyrocketing. The
electric grid is strained. Our clean air and water are being polluted.
Noise is wearing on our communities' health and patience.
People, frankly, are sick and tired of corporate special interests
and Big Tech billionaires taking over their neighborhoods and
threatening their utility bills, air, water, and property.
Unfortunately, these very real concerns are repeatedly swept to the
sidelines, minimized, or ridiculed by President Trump and Republican
congressional leaders.
Last month, Trump posted on social media that communities that
opposed data centers must want to end up being backward and poor. The
President, in my opinion, is out of touch on this issue, and the
American people are demanding action. That is the reality we are living
in right now, where President Trump wants to continue to give Big Tech
free rein to build data centers, with no Federal guardrails.
This bill is a start in addressing the impact that data centers have
on our power bills, but this particular bill does not go far enough to
ensure that Big Tech and other data center owners fully pay for the
energy use and demand that they create. The bill requires State utility
regulators to consider--and I say ``consider''--mandating that the
electricity prices that data centers pay fully account for all their
costs that they impose on the grid. This includes new and upgraded
power plants, high-voltage transmission lines, and local power lines.
{time} 1740
We can all agree that data centers must pay their fair share and that
the data centers themselves allegedly agree, but this bill, I do
believe, is one small step in that direction.
The bill, as I said, isn't perfect. It also only addresses one small
part of the puzzle. It does not change how wholesale generation or
transmission costs are allocated at the Federal level. It doesn't push
for the transparency and data-transfer mechanisms that State regulators
need to ensure that data centers actually are paying their fair share.
Data centers must bring their own clean electricity generation
capacity onto the grid and be willing to get curtailed first when there
are grid reliability issues.
Now, Representative Landsman from Ohio has a bill that would kick
FERC into gear to start studying some of those issues. It passed the
Energy and Commerce Committee unanimously nearly 2 months ago, but
unfortunately, House Republican leadership did not include that bill on
the floor this week.
Regardless of what happens with this bill in the Senate, I will make
a commitment to the American people, Mr. Speaker. Americans across the
country are furious about the unchecked development of data centers and
artificial intelligence. They are furious about what it means for their
communities, for their jobs, or even for their lives. I promise that
this bill is not the end of our focus on these issues. It is only the
beginning.
I have repeatedly said that we need strong guardrails on data centers
and the impact they have on our communities, our environment, and our
bills. If we can't establish those strong guardrails, then it is my
belief that we will need to establish a moratorium on constructing new
data centers.
This bill by itself, or even in combination with a number of other
bills we are considering this week, is simply not enough, but it is a
start.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the distinguished majority leader and my good
friend.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and the chairman of the
House Energy and Commerce Committee (Mr. Guthrie) for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this really important bill by my
friend Mr. Evans from Colorado who led on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the latest advancement in
technology. If you think about the history of this great Nation as we
celebrate 250 years of America, one of the things that America has been
so successful at has been always being on the frontier of new
innovations. In fact, in the last 150 years, America has led the world
in advancements in technology.
Today is no different. In fact, today, America is at the heart of the
domination of technology all around the world. If you think about some
of the simplest things we are able to do in our lives, that give us the
ability to have more free time, or the things you can do on a cell
phone that would have taken a supercomputer 30 years ago to do, that is
because of advancements in technology.
Artificial intelligence and data centers are no different. It is
another advancement in technology. As we are advancing in technology,
we have to do it the right way, Mr. Speaker, in a smart and thoughtful
way. If you look at communities that have embraced data centers, some
communities said it is not for me, and that is a choice communities
make.
The Federal Government is not the one making that decision. What we
have always said, and what President Trump took the leadership in
doing, is meeting with all of the Big Tech companies building these
massive data centers and said just make sure as you are making these
big investments in communities, you won't add to the cost of a local
community's ratepayer electricity rates.
The President got a commitment to do that. We are not fully codifying
that. It is, in essence, a step in that direction what this bill is
doing. But as the President did that, you saw companies going and
making massive multibillion-dollar investments in some of our
communities and helping those communities along the way, Mr. Speaker.
That story does not get told. Frankly, I think that story needs to
get told more. I have seen massive data centers in my home State of
Louisiana. In fact, if you go to little Richland Parish, a rural part
of north Louisiana that not a lot of people live in, not a lot of
opportunities for wealth in that parish, Mr. Speaker, but then Meta
decided to build a data center, and that data center grew and grew as
the community embraced it.
They worked with the community. They are building their own natural
gas facilities. It is actually going to help the grid in that community
because they are going to be paying their own way and anything extra
they have is going to be off-loaded to the grid so the neighbors in
that community will actually get lower utility rates.
Do you know what else happened, Mr. Speaker? This is another part of
the story that is not getting told enough, but the data center is still
being built. It is up to about $50 billion in private funding that is
being built in little Richland Parish.
As they are building that data center, because of all of the
increased sales tax collections to Richland Parish, they were able to
give a bonus. I am not talking about the base salary of their
schoolteachers. They gave a bonus to every schoolteacher in Richland
Parish because of the building of that data center.
Mr. Speaker, do you know how much every schoolteacher in Richland
Parish received a few months ago because of the data center? They
received a bonus of $50,000 per teacher because of the data center.
Those are the stories that you are seeing in communities that have
embraced it, where they worked with the local community. It is not a
burden on that community. It is actually a tremendous benefit. Not only
teachers will benefit, but small businesses are cropping up.
Loudoun County in Virginia, Mr. Speaker, is another community that
made the decision for themselves. It is not a Washington choice. It is
a local community choice, and I think everybody would agree with that.
If there are local communities that don't want it, believe me there are
other communities that will take those benefits.
Loudoun County in Virginia got the benefits of their data centers to
the tune of a 30 percent reduction in property taxes for every
homeowner in Loudoun County, Virginia. They are benefiting from that
still to this day, as well as the jobs that come along with it. They
are benefiting from the investment, the buildings that come along, and
the small business growth that we are seeing.
There has been this assertion, Mr. Speaker, some of it funded by
China, that data centers are driving up utility prices. There was a
study done. In fact, the Institute for Energy Research did a State-by-
State study in all 50 States of this country and they looked at energy
costs, the kilowatt-per-hour cost in every State.
Some States have data centers. Some States don't. The study is
titled: ``Have Data Centers Driven Up Electricity Prices?''
Their conclusion was clearly no, they do not. There was no disparity
in kilowatt hours per customer in States that have data centers and
States that don't.
Again, a lot of that is because President Trump made all of the data
centers, the companies that build them, give those pledges that they
will not have a negative impact on the ratepayers.
What they did find, Mr. Speaker, was quite interesting, and that was
a disparity that does exist in electricity prices between States. It is
not all States.
What they ultimately looked at is States that have a unified
government, all one party, either Republican or either Democrat. The
States that have all unified Democratic Party control in those States
actually have higher electricity costs than States that have all
Republican.
The Institute for Energy Research did the study. You can go find it
online. It shows you State by State the kilowatt-per-hour cost. The
reason it is rising is because a lot of those States that have unified
Democratic government are also States that are losing population. Some
hundreds of thousands to nearly millions of people have fled those
States. As those States lose population because of bad policies, Mr.
Speaker, their baseload capacity is the same. The cost to run their
grid is the same. It is spread amongst fewer people because their bad
policies are running hundreds of thousands or a million-plus people out
of the State.
The States that are growing, that have good government policies, and
that are attracting people and jobs, those States have lower kilowatt-
per-hour costs for their consumers because the same grid has the same
fixed costs, but there is more people to spread the cost around so
those people pay less.
That is what actually is happening in this country. Look at all the
States. Go look at the Institute for Energy Research study, Mr.
Speaker, because it shows you what is really happening out there.
There is a revolution happening. China is competing, and America is
competing. We surely do not want China to win this war. America is
staying at the forefront. I want us to stay at the forefront. Let
locals make the choice and let consumers reap the benefits. That is
what is happening right now, and this bill, by my friend Congressman
Evans, ensures that we continue to see that growth continue.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption.
{time} 1750
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), who is the ranking member of our
Subcommittee on Energy.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for
yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, the Ratepayer Protection
Act. I am proud to lead this bipartisan bill with Congressman Evans to
protect my neighbors from unfairly paying for the energy needs of large
AI data centers.
Mr. Speaker, all across America, families, farmers, and small
business owners fear the arrival of their electric bill every month.
Too many are struggling under the weight of soul-crushing energy bills,
and it comes at a time especially where everything costs more--your
groceries, gas, diesel, healthcare, and housing.
Many of my neighbors back in the Tampa Bay area show me their
electric bills. They are exorbitant, and it is gut-wrenching. They are
not alone because across the country, electricity prices are up on
average 15 percent, but much higher in many places.
But now there is a new stressor: massive hyperscale data centers are
connecting to the grid. These are energy hogs. They are massive. The
descriptors know no end.
When a data center or other large load comes online, it can trigger
massive upgrades--new power plants, transmission lines, local
transformers--and typically those costs are passed along to ratepayers,
and that is not fair. Our neighbors should not be stuck paying for the
energy infrastructure of the wealthiest countries in the world. The
Ratepayer Protection Act says that the data center pays for its own
upgrades, not the rest of us.
These monumental hyperscale data centers can span hundreds of
thousands of square feet. They host thousands of servers, computer
storage, networks, and then they have these giant cooling systems that
also require massive amounts of energy as well.
Massive hyperscale data centers can continuously consume over 100
megawatts, with the largest facilities consuming over 650 megawatts.
That is comparable to the energy use of tens of thousands or hundreds
of thousands of homes.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, right now data centers
consume about 4.4 percent of all electricity in America, but they
predict that that will go up to 12 percent of the total electricity
consumption in America by just 2028.
Mr. Speaker, hyperscale data centers are being constructed by the
wealthiest Big Tech corporations on the planet. As hardworking
Americans are just trying to make ends meet, they shouldn't carry Big
Tech's data center load as well. That is why we hammered out the
bipartisan Ratepayer Protection Act, to ensure that data centers pay
the full cost of their energy demand and upgrades.
It says that if a company wants to build a data center, they should
pay for the power and grid upgrades they need, not the rest of us.
This bill will require those data centers to cover all the costs. It
is an important first step. I know some people say this is not enough.
It is not enough. It is not enough, but it does provide some first
steps.
Congress has to do more. We should set stricter requirements for
States to report their progress to Congress so we can ensure the bill
is enforced. We should incentivize data centers to be empowered by
clean energy and prioritize projects that can reduce demand during peak
hours.
But notably, this bill does allow States to do some of those things.
The States now can set additional specific guardrails. For example,
States can require that data centers are powered by clean energy and
don't damage local water supplies. They can require investments in
grid-enhancing technologies or virtual power plants. States can even
require that data centers fund weatherization initiatives or deployment
of energy-saving batteries, rooftop solar, and heat pumps.
For example, Virginia is requiring data centers to cover new
transmission and distribution capacity costs. Minnesota requires data
centers to pay into an energy conservation and weatherization fund to
benefit working-class neighbors. Kansas incentivized data centers to
participate in demand response programs to reduce peak demand.
This bill also empowers local communities to make decisions on the
siting and building of data centers. It allows for robust community
input, not NDAs, nondisclosure agreements, where they try to sneak in.
For example, in Florida, at least 20 counties and municipalities
passed or discussed very strict guardrails on data centers. In my home
county, Hillsborough County, many say that is not the appropriate place
for a data center because we don't have the water resources and we
don't have the electricity yet to do that. There are places in America
that don't want them.
We need to keep working on this, but this is a very important first
step. These are the wealthiest corporations in America. There is no
reason why the average American should be subsidizing their electricity
upgrades and costs.
I am eager to keep advancing bipartisan, real solutions to invest in
our U.S. power grid, which is reaching the end of its useful life,
which is also raising costs on Americans. We have just got to remain
clear-eyed that right now our neighbors are suffering an affordability
squeeze. They deserve so much better than what they are getting right
now.
This Ratepayer Protection Act is a good first start, but it is a
modest first start. It is about fairness on this one.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Latta), the chair of the Subcommittee on Energy.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the chairman of the
full Committee on Energy and Commerce, for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection
Act, led by the gentleman from Colorado's Eighth Congressional
District.
This legislation passed out of our Energy and Commerce Committee with
a 52-0 vote.
Mr. Speaker, the goal here is very simple: Data centers should pay
their own way. That is why this legislation is so important. We must
ensure that American families and small businesses are protected from
electricity price increases caused by large loads like data centers.
The increase in data center development raises important questions
about how these facilities will affect local electric grids in nearby
communities.
H.R. 9340 encourages States to establish a standard that requires
large data centers to cover the full costs necessary to service their
loads.
Over the last 5 years, electricity rates have steadily increased
across the country.
While data center demand growth is exploding, at the same time,
record amounts of baseload generation are prematurely leaving our
grids. This is a problem that must be addressed.
H.R. 9340 ensures that States can hold AI companies responsible for
their own costs and that hardworking American families aren't on the
hook for the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to pass the Ratepayer Protection Act.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. I have no
additional speakers.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Balderson), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Mr. BALDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 9340, the
Ratepayer Protection Act.
This bill codifies the principles of the President's Ratepayer
Protection Pledge, ensuring that Ohio families and small businesses
aren't left on the hook to pay the costs associated with generation and
energy infrastructure needed to power large data centers.
As demand for electricity continues to rise across Ohio and the
Nation, it is critical that Congress takes action to protect our
constituents from increased electric bills.
Ohio has already taken strong steps to make sure large electricity
users contribute appropriately to the costs they impose on the grid.
The Ratepayer Protection Act builds on that commonsense approach by
directing States to adopt standards that ensure these facilities pay
their fair share.
Importantly, this bill does not infringe on local control over the
siting and permitting of these projects.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Evans for leading this bipartisan
legislation and urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1800
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Evans), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and
sponsor of the legislation.
Mr. EVANS of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding
me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bipartisan bill with
Representative Castor, the Ratepayer Protection Act.
America is in a period of incredible growth. Manufacturing jobs are
returning to our shores. We are investing in American energy again. We
are leading the charge for technological innovation. With that growth,
our demand for energy is also skyrocketing, and some people have very
understandable reservations and questions about data centers.
The future, however, is binary: Either we build out our power systems
to meet that demand, or we become dependent on other countries, like
Communist China, for our daily needs, to include digital infrastructure
that stores Americans' consumer data, financial data, healthcare data,
and personal data.
Hardworking Coloradans in my district do want economic growth, and
they do not want the Chinese Communist Party handling their sensitive
information. They want responsible development practices, but they see
the need for massive investments in our energy systems and wonder who
is going to pay for it. This bill answers that question very clearly.
Large-load data centers must cover the full costs of any system
upgrades they require, not families or small businesses. We cannot
accelerate this growth on the backs of Americans who are working hard
to pay their electric bills at the end of the month.
The Ratepayer Protection Act also gives States and local communities
a voice to implement these principles and protect community members
from rising utility bills.
This bill passed unanimously in the Energy and Commerce Committee. It
is common sense. It keeps costs low for Americans and helps us build
the energy backbone required to compete and win in the AI race and to
keep Americans' digital information here in the United States, not in
China.
Madam Speaker, I am grateful it is being considered today. I urge my
colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
Mr. WITTMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act.
This legislation will require State utility regulators to examine
standards to ensure that data centers pay all the costs associated with
their power generation, transmission lines, and grid upgrades needed to
serve their facilities.
The Commonwealth of Virginia is home to approximately 13 percent of
all data centers in the world. Some of these data centers are located
in the district that I represent.
While data centers create economic opportunities for our communities,
they also come with enormous challenges. Data centers support
telehealth, mobile banking for American small businesses, and everyday
technologies like streaming services. At the same time, they consume
massive amounts of power and place increasing strain on our electric
grid while threatening to increase costs for families.
Virginians and Americans who choose to have data centers in their
communities should not be paying higher electric bills as a result.
Instead, these costs should be borne directly by the data center
developers, the primary catalysts of this increased demand for energy.
We have a responsibility to ensure that our constituents are not
picking up the tab for data centers, and this legislation will do
exactly that.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Ratepayer Protection Act, and I
urge all of my colleagues to support its passage.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. Boebert).
Ms. BOEBERT. Madam Speaker, America is in a race for the future, and
that future is artificial intelligence.
We need to build data centers that will power American AI. We need to
create jobs, grow our economy, and make sure that the next generation
of technology is built right here in the United States.
But there is one principle that we should never compromise: American
families should not be forced to pay for someone else's data center.
That is exactly what the Ratepayer Protection Act addresses.
If a massive data center wants to come in and consume hundreds of
megawatts of electricity, it should pay the full incremental costs of
providing that power, not the families struggling to pay their electric
bills and not the small businesses trying to keep their doors open. The
companies creating the demand should pay for the demand.
This is not antibusiness. It is not anti-AI. It is certainly not
antigrowth. It is common sense.
In fact, when we get this right, the data centers can actually
strengthen communities. Georgia Power was able to freeze residential
rates for 3 years as large-load growth expanded.
In Virginia, data centers took on a dramatically larger share of
transmission costs while residential customers saw their share decline.
In Loudoun County alone, data centers have generated $1.1 billion in
tax revenue.
Madam Speaker, let's build. Let's compete. Let's win the AI race.
Let's also protect the people who keep this country running. The
Ratepayer Protection Act gives States a practical tool to make sure
that massive new electricity users pay their fair share while
preserving State authority over their energy markets.
America can lead the world in AI without making American families
foot the bill. That is not a radical idea. That is responsible
leadership, and I applaud my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Evans) for
leading on this issue.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Lawler), my good friend.
Mr. LAWLER. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer
Protection Act.
New York families and businesses face some of the highest electricity
costs in the country. In February, the average residential electricity
price in New York reached about 70 percent higher than the national
average, and it is up 58 percent in the last 6 years.
At the same time, data centers seeking to connect to New York's
electric grid are reportedly requesting more than 9,000 megawatts of
additional electricity. Years of failed energy policies out of Albany,
including shutting down nuclear, banning natural gas, blocking
pipelines, and other crazy ideas, have already driven up costs for New
Yorkers. We cannot afford to make the problem worse.
As we work to bring new investments and jobs to New York and, indeed,
America, we need to make sure that the costs of growth do not fall on
the families and small businesses already struggling to pay their
utility bills. That is why I support the Ratepayer Protection Act.
This legislation simply establishes a basic principle of fairness. It
is about making sure that the companies driving new demand for
electricity are responsible for the costs associated with that demand.
We are already seeing communities and policymakers grappling with how
to manage the rapid growth of large-scale data centers and the demands
that they place on our energy infrastructure. This is something that
the Federal Government needs to work together on to create regulations
and protect the people because we need a better approach.
We need one that respects the role of local communities while
ensuring that companies driving new demand are responsible for the
costs that they create. We need a policy that looks ahead, builds the
infrastructure we need, and protects ratepayers at the same time.
I will continue working to ensure that New Yorkers have access to
reliable and affordable energy while making sure that large energy
users pay their fair share.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this
legislation.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Mackenzie).
Mr. MACKENZIE. Madam Speaker, communities throughout the Nation are
seeing unprecedented growth in electricity demand, driven in large part
by data centers and other energy-intensive facilities.
That growing demand is already having a direct impact on communities
like those that I represent in the Lehigh Valley and the Poconos,
where, after 4 years of severe inflation under President Biden,
residents are being put in a position where they could end up footing
the energy bill for new data centers. The rapid growth of these
facilities requires unprecedented new investments in our electric grid.
While the grid capacity will catch up eventually, the short-term
costs of those investments must not be passed on to families, seniors,
and small businesses, many of whom don't want data centers in their
communities in the first place.
{time} 1810
That is why I am proud to cosponsor the bipartisan Ratepayer
Protection Act, because large energy consumers who create the demand
for new energy infrastructure should pay their fair share of the cost.
We can maintain local control of development activities while also
protecting existing ratepayers, and that is exactly what this
legislation does.
I thank Representative Evans for his partnership on this legislation,
and I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 9340.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close. I do believe that this legislation is a first step, and
therefore, I support it and would ask my colleagues to vote for it. I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close. I agree, this is important. We have to beat China. We have to
win the war on AI. If we don't, they are going to set the standards for
technology around the world. It needs to be with our values, not
theirs.
To do that, we have to have the data centers. It needs to be locally
decided where they go, and ratepayers need to be protected from it.
That is what I heard all of August. I think most of us home working
heard about it.
This is an example where people are going home, both sides of the
aisle, listening, and coming back here and doing something about the
concerns for the people they represent.
I encourage support of this bill. I encourage for its passage, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Illinois). The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie) that
the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 9340, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
____________________