[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 147 (Thursday, September 17, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4775-S4776]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Requests
Mr. HUSTED. Mr. President, America is expected to build the
equivalent of 1,000 major data centers during the next 5 years. You
heard that correctly--a thousand data centers within the next 5 years,
with more than 2,000 projects currently being proposed and tracked. We
need to protect American ratepayers from footing the bill.
The clock is ticking, and we have no time for delay. Americans are
becoming ever more reliant on computing power from data centers for
their daily lives--from medicine to manufacturing, education to
agriculture, and national defense to the way we deliver basic services.
Data centers are used not just for AI. They support almost every aspect
of modern life, including online shopping, streaming videos, social
media, and the broadcast of this very debate.
To meet these consumer demands, Americans need an ample supply of
electricity. This problem has been exacerbated by the fact that, due to
Federal regulations over the past two decades, powerplants have been
closed, decreasing the supply of electricity. Congress failed to stop
this action. During the Obama and Biden years alone, 23 powerplants
were closed in the State of Ohio, creating a supply-and-demand problem
that drove up prices on consumers.
So, as we look to build the future, we must follow some basic
principles of fairness.
The companies creating enormous new demands for electricity should
pay the costs required to serve them--pretty simple. Working families,
small businesses, and senior citizens should not open up their electric
bills and discover they are paying for the power infrastructure needed
by some large tech company in the world or in their neighborhood.
That is the principle behind the Ratepayer Protection Act.
When a very large electricity customer, such as a data center,
connects to the grid, it requires investments in new generation,
transmission lines, substations, and local distribution systems. The
Ratepayer Protection Act would require State utility regulators to
consider standards, ensuring that large load customers pay the full--
full--incremental costs of the infrastructure needed to serve it. Those
standards could also require financial assurances so that families are
not left paying for stranded infrastructure if the project is delayed,
downsized, or abandoned. In plain language, if you create the cost, you
should pay the cost.
This is not anti-technology legislation. It is pro-growth and pro-
innovation. Mostly, it is procurement legislation. In fact, protecting
ratepayers will make it easier, not harder, for America to build the
technology infrastructure we need. Americans are understandably
concerned about rising electric bills. If they believe every new data
center will make their monthly bills go up, public opposition will
grow, communities will reject plans, construction will slow, and China
will gain ground.
The better approach is to establish clear rules from the beginning.
Data centers should only be located where communities want them. They
can bring billions of dollars in private investment; in construction
work for electricians, pipefitters, equipment operators, and other
skilled trades; as well as in revenue for schools and local services.
But those benefits should not come with a hidden charge of electric
bills for families, farmers, and small businesses.
When companies know up front that they will be responsible for their
own energy costs, they can plan accordingly. That approach encourages
innovation. It rewards those who find the most efficient ways to
operate. It also creates an incentive to build more American energy in
the most efficient manner possible. When energy supply adequately meets
demand, it helps put down pressure on prices for consumers. It helps
people save money; that is what it does. They keep more of their
paychecks for what they need to spend for their priorities.
Providing modern benefits from innovation does not require us to
choose between technological leadership and affordable electricity. We
can do both. We can do both. We can build the computing capacity
America needs, and we can produce the reliable energy it requires. We
can protect families and small businesses from unfair costs.
The Ratepayer Protection Act rests on a principle every American
understands: Pay your own way. This is how we make sure American
families are not left footing the bill for the energy infrastructure
required by data centers. Most importantly, it will help the American
people keep more of what they earn.
So this brings me to this moment:
Yesterday, this bill passed the House of Representatives by a nearly
unanimous vote of 417 to 3. That is right--417 Members of the U.S.
House of Representatives voted to pass this bill, with only 3
objections. So the Members of the House did their jobs; they stood up
for the American ratepayer. It is time for the Senate to do the same.
In a few moments, I am going to ask my colleagues in the Senate to
support the Ratepayer Protection Act. Together, we can send this bill
to the President's desk for his signature. The Ratepayer Protection Act
represents the most meaningful, bipartisan step Congress can take to
protect the American people from higher prices for electricity. I am
here today because we can get this done. The House has already done it.
The House has done its job. There is no need to wait and no need to
delay.
If we get it done today, we say to the American people: We actually
care. We heard you. We are going to get the job done.
It demonstrates Washington can work in a bipartisan way to address
the problems that are most pressing to the American people. I am proud
to have led this effort in the U.S. Senate, and I am going to urge
unanimous consent for this commonsense bill.
Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule
XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of H.R. 9340, which is at the desk; further, that the
bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cramer). Is there an objection?
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the
Senator from Ohio and I agree on one thing: AI data centers can mean
higher costs for American families, and in a lot of places, they
already do.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas found that data center demand has
already pushed electricity prices across the Nation up by 2 to 6
percent--a number that they expect to increase to 20 to 30 percent by
2028. In the Mid-Atlantic region, that means an extra $840 per year,
per family, for the next 2 years--840 bucks. We expect to see increases
like this across the country as more AI data centers come online, but
the Ratepayer Protection Act falls short of what we need to do to
respond.
When I open my mail and unfold my electricity bill and read how much
I owe for the month, it doesn't say that
[[Page S4776]]
I may pay that amount. It doesn't say that I should pay that amount. It
is not optional. Just like every other bill-paying American family
out there, I open that bill, and I have to pay it. The same needs to be
true for AI data centers. If hyperscalers and other Big Tech developers
need expensive new facilities and more energy, they should pay for it,
not our hard-working families and small businesses.
I think the Senator from Ohio and I agree on that principle, and
plenty of Big Tech companies have said that that is their plan. But I
don't think it is enough to just take their word for it. It is not
enough for us to tell States to consider making data centers pay for
grid updates. Rather than voluntary pledges or suggestions to States,
Congress needs to pass real legislation with real teeth.
That is why I introduced the GRID Savings Act--not a voluntary
agreement--to require large load customers like data centers to pay for
the facilities needed to connect them to the grid--not to consider it,
not to make pledges, but to actually do it; to pay for the upgrades
they need. That way, we can ensure reliable, low-cost energy to power
everyday lives. My bill is what is needed to start to bring down energy
prices.
We also need to do more to get data centers to actually engage with
communities from the beginning to the very end. We need to conserve
local resources, especially water. And we need to protect communities
from air pollution by using clean energy and battery storage. But we
are not going to get there with the bill that the Senator from Ohio has
proposed.
Therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, as if in legislative session and
notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged from further
consideration of S. 5199, the GRID Savings Act, and that the Senate
proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be
considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. MORENO. Mr. President, reserving my right to object, I just want
to make it crystal clear for everybody as to what just happened.
If we had passed my colleague from Ohio's bill--the one he spent an
enormous amount of time writing, the bill that he spent enormous time
in lobbying support for from the House of Representatives--all we had
to do was not have an objection from a Democrat Senator. That bill
would have become law today, and taxpayers all over America and
electricity users all over this country would have seen immediate
relief. We would have advanced the ball.
The term ``do-nothing Congress'' exists for a reason. We absolutely
accomplished that right now. We did nothing here in the Senate because
of, again, Democrat obstruction. This bill would have done something.
That is not nothing.
So I applaud my colleague from Ohio for putting the work in and for
having a massive, bipartisan win.
By the way, just on policy alone in comparing the two solutions, the
last thing we need is a new Federal interconnection queue to make
Google pay for a transformer. My colleague from Ohio's bill would have
actually required a deposit before steel is put in the ground for a new
data center. The other would have required a FERC NOPR. Look that up.
It is a bunch of bureaucratic nonsense.
What you saw now is just, over and over again, Democrat obstruction
after Democrat obstruction so they can just put up another TV ad saying
that electricity prices are high so that they can win an election.
Instead, the victim of all of this is the taxpayer of the United States
of America, who is going to see electricity prices continue to go up,
when we could have passed a law to have solved it. Instead, it is more
games after more games. Like the American people, I am sick of it, and
I know they are.
For that reason, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. HUSTED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for an
additional 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HUSTED. Mr. President, I would just say this: I accept the
Senator from New Mexico's concerns, but the reason I am proposing that
we pass this piece of legislation is that it passed the House, 417 to
3. If the Senator from New Mexico's provision had passed the House 417
to 3, he would have had every right to stand up and ask that we do
this.
Before we leave here, we ought to do something on a matter that the
American people have asked us to do something about, and we have the
opportunity to do that with the Ratepayer Protection Act. It is a shame
that this opportunity has been missed today, but I will be back to push
this issue forward. We have a bipartisan opportunity to get this done,
and we should do it immediately.