0

The Ratepayer Protection Act, GRID Savings Act, and state-by-state patchwork of laws reveals pre-election urgency in balancing AI development with grid capacity and cost

In sum, what to know:

• Ratepayer Protection Act vs. Grid Savings Act – Sen. Martin Henrich (D-New Mexico) blocked the fast-track of the Ratepayer Savings Act, and Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) blocked the fast-track of the GRID Savings ACT.
• Striking a balance – The blockade will likely force lawmakers to blend elements of the Ratepayer Protection Act with the GRID Savings Act after the midterm elections.
• Patchwork of state laws – 24 states have already taken action by independently implementing large-load standards or tariffs to protect residential consumers from data center energy costs.
• Underutilized power infrastructure – Subsequent to new laws, ‘BYOC’ strategies will make different regions attractive for data center buildouts.

With midterm elections coming up in November, and voters increasingly angry about rising energy costs, the House of Representatives passed by a 417-3 landslide the Ratepayer Protection Act, only to immediately have Senator Martin Heinrich – top Democrat on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee –move to block fast-track passage of the bill in the Senate. That bill’s fast-track was advocated by Sen. Jon Husted (R-Ohio), in the hopes it would reach President Trump’s desk before the elections. Heinrich and other Senate Democrats believe the Ratepayer Protection Act lacks immediate, binding federal “teeth” – instead providing what they call a “light touch” advisory framework that asks public utility commissions (PUCs) to “consider” adopting large-load standards within two years. That means state commissions can reject the standards. As an alternative, Heinrich and other Democrats want FERC to have direct rulemaking jurisdiction over the interconnection of large loads to the interstate transmission grid. They propose, through the GRID Savings Act, that there be binding federal rules that force large-load facilities of 150 MW or more to cover 100% of direct interconnection and facility costs. On the floor, Senator Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) blocked Sen. Heinrich’s attempt to fast-track the GRID Savings Act. As a result, the bill is referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, where Heinrich is the Ranking Member.

With the Henrich blocking the fast-track of the Ratepayer Savings Act, and Moreno blocking fast-track of the GRID Savings ACT, there will be no legislative action in the Senate on either until after the midterm elections. The blockade will likely force lawmakers to blend elements of the Ratepayer Protection Act with the GRID Savings Act.

Even though the federal bills are stalled, individual state PUCs have already been holding hearings and enforcing cost-shifting rules. That means for now, there is a state-by-state patchwork of rules and laws, with more than 300 data center energy bills already being floated across state capitals. Some PUCs have started mandating “take-or-pay” tariffs that require minimum financial requirements around grid power requests, and others are separating data centers from traditional industrial businesses so that there are entirely separate rate structures.

Some examples of recent activity include:

• Ohio: Set an early standard by requiring data centers to contractually guarantee and pay for at least 85% of the electric capacity they request for a minimum of 10 years, regardless of how much power they actually end up using.
• New Jersey: Enacted a matching Capacity Cost Allocation law mirroring Ohio’s 85% capacity payment framework for any facility demanding 100 MW or more.
• Oregon: Utilized the state’s POWER Act to approve “Schedule 96” for Portland General Electric, requiring data centers using 100 MW or more to pay an extra 1 cent per kilowatt-hour premium. The first published rate outcomes under this tariff saw data center rates spike 29%, while residential rates successfully dropped 1.3%.
• Minnesota & Wisconsin: Both state PUCs are under active regulatory mandates to finalize distinct, isolated “very large customer classes” to ensure hyper-targeted cost tracking.
• Pennsylvania PUC: Initiated formal proceedings to establish emergency load control rules. Under the evolving framework, when the regional grid (PJM) faces supply shortages, unbacked data centers are mandated to shut down their operations first, ensuring local household electricity remains uninterrupted.
• Texas: The PUC and ERCOT enforced protocols that allow utilities to immediately disconnect large loads (75 MW+) during grid-stress events and mandate strict co-location rules for facilities operating on-site backup generators.
• Alabama PSC: Implemented a system where the Alabama Public Service Commission must individually audit contracts for data centers exceeding 150 MW. Tech hyperscalers are forced to prove they are covering 100% of the localized costs for everything from the physical transmission lines down to the fuel and taxes.
• Florida: Enacted rules banning data center developers from using NDAs to hide true projected power usage from the public or the Florida PUC.

Many energy and market analysts have voiced skepticism that current state laws will significantly lower existing consumer electricity prices to what would’ve been seen as historically “normal” levels (in line with baseline inflation). However, they expect different levels of legislation will, over time, establish boundaries for preventing future cost-shifting spikes.

These laws can also help to alter the timeline and geography of data center buildouts in their states. If data centers are made to cover the “full, incremental costs” of generation, transmission, and distribution, they will have to be more aggressive about “bring-your-own-capacity” (BYOC), building their own dedicated local power generation plants or grid substations. That would mean delays of several years, sometimes taking kinger than even the construction of the data center shells.

As a result, more data center buildouts will target regions with underutilized power infrastructure, like Indiana or Ohio, or those with massive nuclear fleets, like Illinois, (or in regions willing to grant carve-outs to preserve tech sector investments). Already, states on the western side of PJM like Indiana, Ohio, or Illinois, are becoming more attractive prospects. In addition, desert states like Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico have enormous potential for solar arrays and wind farms directly adjacent to high-voltage transmission lines that pass through sparsely populated areas. In addition, the rural Great Plains and Southern states like Tennessee and Texas have underutilized wind and solar power that can be used “behind the meter.”

The combination of skyrocketing electricity demand—heavily driven by AI data centers and electrification—and severe supply chain gridlock will continue to feed an investment cycle that drives prices up. For context, in the first half of 2026, North America’s primary markets grew 33.7% YoY to a record 10.9 GW, according to CBRE. During a recent AI TechTalk interview with CBRE director of data center research, Gordon Dolven, it was noted that vacancy rates are at record lows “of less than 2%,” with rates currently holding flat at about 1.4%.

In 2025, utility companies requested $31 billion in rate hikes (double that of 2024), and in the first three months of 2026, an additional $9.4 billion was requested. That has helped push national retail electricity prices to jump roughly 12% to 15% between 2024 and 2026. Between 2021 and 2026, average U.S. residential electricity bills jumped by nearly 30%, with some regions experiencing spikes as high as 25% to 40%, according to January 2026 information released by The National Energy Assistance Directors Association (NEADA).