White House Expands Data Center Ratepayer Pledge as Congress Moves to Codify Protections

Congress and the White House advanced parallel tracks this week to keep large data centers from shifting their grid costs onto electricity customers, reflecting a concern that has gathered momentum among state regulators, consumer advocates, and members of both parties. On July 21, the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 52-0 to advance the Ratepayer Protection Act (H.R. 9340), a bipartisan bill that would direct state utility commissions to consider requiring 100-MW-and-larger data-center loads to cover the full cost of grid upgrades needed to serve them. On Thursday, the White House expanded its Ratepayer Protection Pledge to 187 utilities, electric cooperatives, and data-center developers, along with 23 governors. According to the White House, the coalition covers “roughly 80% of the power delivered to American homes and businesses.” The federal moves follow a wave of state-level action rooted in growing alarm over electricity affordability. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 14 states are weighing moratoriums or bans on new data-center construction, with pending or enacted measures in Georgia, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont, and Virginia, among others. The most sweeping recent effort came on July 14, when New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed Executive Order 62 directing state agencies to hold in abeyance permits for data centers of 50 MW or more pending a Generic Environmental Impact Statement, and declaring as state policy that “the cost of electric system upgrades required to provide electric utility service to large loads should not be paid for by every-day New Yorkers.” While the White House pledge is voluntary and relies on utilities, developers, and tech firms to honor nonbinding commitments, the House bill strives to embed similar principles in the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). But stopping short of imposing a federal mandate, H.R. 9340 would require state regulators and non‑regulated utilities to open proceedings to consider a “large‑load” standard that shifts the full incremental cost of serving very large customers—most notably data centers—onto those customers instead of ordinary ratepayers. House Committee Sends Ratepayer Protection Act to Floor 52-0 As it stands, H.R. 9340, introduced June 18 by Rep. Gabe Evans (R-Colo.) and Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), would amend Section 111(d) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) to add a new federal “Standards for Large-Load Customers” provision. PURPA is best known for opening electricity markets to qualifying cogeneration and small power production facilities, but the law also created a framework through which Congress can direct state utility regulators and nonregulated utilities to consider federal retail-rate and regulatory standards. While Section 111 generally does not require adoption, it requires each authority to evaluate the specified standard through its own proceedings and determine whether implementation is appropriate. Because H.R. 9340 works through that framework, it would not mandate adoption of the large-load standard outright. However, every state regulatory authority and nonregulated utility would have to begin considering it—or set a hearing date—within one year of enactment and complete its determination within two years. The requirement would not apply where a state had already implemented a comparable standard, a regulator or nonregulated utility had conducted a proceeding to consider one, or the state legislature had voted on one. The standard itself has two operative parts. Rates or related agreements for serving a large-load customer would have to recover “the full, incremental cost of any generation, transmission, or distribution upgrade necessary to serve the load,” including if the customer terminates its contract or otherwise stops buying power. Before undertaking any such upgrade, the utility would have to require the customer to provide “financial assurances or contributions to cover the cost.” The bill defines a large-load customer as a nonresidential consumer requesting electric service for one or more facilities with an aggregate peak demand of at least 100 MW at a single site or campus. The original bill’s broad “large-load” definition drew opposition from energy-intensive manufacturers. In a June 23 letter to Guthrie and other committee leaders, the Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA)—whose manufacturing members report $1.3 trillion in annual sales—warned that the definition “captures the manufacturing sector” and adds “tremendous regulatory and cost uncertainty for both new and existing facilities and inter-industry competitiveness.” IECA President Paul Cicio argued that the provision could put a steel manufacturer consuming 100 MW at a cost disadvantage against one consuming 25 MW and urged lawmakers to limit the standard to computational loads whose demand “primarily comes from information technology equipment, such as servers, storage, and networking hardware.” The committee substitute appears to have addressed that objection. In a July 17 letter supporting the amended measure, IECA said the revised definition applies to businesses operating information-technology infrastructure and related data-storage and computational systems with aggregate peak demand of at least 100 MW. The definition, IECA said, “correctly defines data centers” and “properly excludes manufacturing companies.” Committee leaders, meanwhile, presented the measure as a response to data-center growth, not industrial load. “The Ratepayer Protection Act will ensure that data centers pay their own way, instead of passing costs onto hardworking families,” Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) said, adding that the committee had “met with numerous stakeholders, including the data center industry and big tech, state regulators, utilities, and others.” Likewise, Energy Subcommittee Chairman Bob Latta (R-Ohio) said the bill would protect ratepayers “from being forced to cover the cost of energy infrastructure upgrades needed to support data centers,” noting that “numerous states already have large load tariffs in place for data centers, including Ohio.” He urged House leaders to bring it to the floor “as soon as possible.” The White House Pledge: Coalition Triples in Size The White House’s Ratepayer Protection Pledge, first unveiled March 4 by seven of the nation’s largest AI companies and hyperscalers—Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, Oracle, and xAI—is a non-regulatory, voluntary commitment binding signatories to build, procure, or fund the generation capacity sufficient to cover their data-center electricity demand, and to pay for the grid infrastructure required to connect them, without passing those costs to residential or commercial ratepayers. The July 23 expansion brings the total to 187 organizations across three stakeholder groups, along with 23 governors and the seven AI companies and hyperscalers from the March round. Under the White House’s count, the expanded coalition now “protects” 263 million Americans—three-quarters of the U.S. population—when a data center is built nearby. On its page, the White House notably seems to suggest the expansion is a direct response to reported skepticism, “including The Wall Street Journal,” which had questioned whether the pledge could be enforced when “power prices are set by state regulators, electricity buyers, and electricity sellers.” The pledge “now has commitments from every one of them—and from the developers who actually build the facilities,” the White House said. The pledge’s five commitments are substantially the same as those signed in March, though reorganized under new headings. Participating governors—23 Republicans from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming—notably signed an addendum to the pledge document, attesting that they will “implement the principles established in the Ratepayer Protection Pledge, to the greatest extent possible in our respective positions.” The addendum likely serves as a mechanism by which the White House has sought to bring state officials into the commitment that otherwise applies to companies alone. Under one commitment, signatories agreed to procure the generation resources needed for their new energy demand by “building or buying from new or otherwise additive power plants” and to pay the full cost. Where possible, they will “add capacity that increases supply for the broader public.” Under the second commitment, signatories will cover all new power delivery upgrades required to serve their data centers, including network upgrade costs. Those investments include transmission and distribution upgrades associated with large-load interconnections, which utilities in many jurisdictions would otherwise recover through regulated rates paid by existing customers. The third commitment addresses what happens when contracted load fails to materialize, which has long been a persistent uncertainty in large-load rate design. Under the pledge, signatories will negotiate separate rate structures with their utilities and state governments and pay those rates “for the power and infrastructure brought online for them—whether or not they actually use the electricity.” The fourth commitment obligates signatories to hire locally and invest in workforce development in the communities where they build. The fifth calls for coordination with grid operators and, “wherever possible,” making backup generation available during scarcity events to help prevent blackouts and shortages. The signatories cluster in three key groups: 55 investor-owned utilities that own most U.S. generation and transmission capacity, 105 electric cooperatives and public-power entities that serve rural and municipal load, and 27 data-center developers that own and operate the facilities driving new demand. Among the utility signatories are all of the largest U.S. investor-owned holding companies by customer count, including American Electric Power, Berkshire Hathaway Energy, Dominion Energy, Duke Energy, Entergy, Exelon, FirstEnergy, NextEra Energy, PG&E, PPL, Public Service Enterprise Group, Sempra, Southern Company, TVA, WEC Energy Group, and Xcel Energy. The cooperative list is backed by more than 100 generation-and-transmission co-ops such as Basin Electric, Big Rivers, Dairyland Power, Hoosier Energy, and Oglethorpe Power, alongside large public-power systems including Nebraska Public Power District, Omaha Public Power District, Salt River Project, and Santee Cooper. The data-center developer group includes the largest wholesale operators in the sector, among them Aligned, CyrusOne, Digital Realty, Equinix, QTS, Stack Infrastructure, and Vantage. | Category | Signatories | |---|---| | Governors (23) | Kay Ivey (Alabama), Mike Dunleavy (Alaska), Sarah Huckabee Sanders (Arkansas), Brian Kemp (Georgia), Brad Little (Idaho), Mike Braun (Indiana), Kim Reynolds (Iowa), Jeff Landry (Louisiana), Tate Reeves (Mississippi), Mike Kehoe (Missouri), Greg Gianforte (Montana), Jim Pillen (Nebraska), Joe Lombardo (Nevada), Kelly Armstrong (North Dakota), Mike DeWine (Ohio), Kevin Stitt (Oklahoma), Henry McMaster (South Carolina), Larry Rhoden (South Dakota), Bill Lee (Tennessee), Greg Abbott (Texas), Spencer Cox (Utah), Patrick Morrisey (West Virginia), Mark Gordon (Wyoming) | | AI Companies and Hyperscalers (7) March 4, 2026 signatories | Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, Oracle, xAI | | Utilities (55) | AEP Ohio, AEP Texas, AES Corp, Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp., ALLETE, Alliant Energy, Ameren Corporation, American Electric Power, Appalachian Power, Arizona Public Service Company, Avangrid, Avista, Berkshire Hathaway, Black Hills, CenterPoint Energy, Consumers Energy, Conway Corp, Dominion Energy, DTE Energy, Duke Energy, El Paso Electric, Entergy Corporation, Evergy Inc., Exelon Corporation, FirstEnergy, Georgia Power / Mississippi Power / Alabama Power (Southern Company operating companies), Idaho Power, Indiana Michigan Power, ITC Holdings Corp., Kentucky Power, Madison Gas and Electric Company, MDU Resources Group, Minnesota Power, National Grid Ventures, NextEra Energy Inc., NiSource, NorthWestern Energy, OGE Energy Corp., PPL Corporation, PG&E Corporation, Portland General Electric, Public Service Company of Oklahoma, Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG), Sempra, Southern California Edison, Southern Company, Southwestern Electric Power Company, Superior Water Light & Power, TECO, Tucson Electric Power Company, TVA, Unisource Energy Services, UNS Energy Corporation, WEC Energy Group, Xcel Energy | | Cooperatives (105) | 1803 Electric Cooperative Inc, Adams Columbia Electric Cooperative, APPA, Association of Louisiana Electric Cooperatives, Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Big Horn County Electric Cooperative Inc., Big Rivers Electric Corporation, Bon Homme Yankton Electric Association, Burke-Divide Electric Cooperative, Caney Fork Electric Cooperative, Capital Electric Cooperative Inc., Cass County Electric Cooperative, Central Georgia EMC, Central Power Electric Cooperative, Chickasaw Electric Cooperative, Claiborne Electric Cooperative Inc., Cloverland Electric Cooperative, Codington-Clark Electric Cooperative Inc., Colorado Springs Utilities, Cookson Hills Electric Cooperative, Cooperative Energy, Cordova Electric Cooperative, Cuming County Public Power District, Dairyland Power Cooperative, Darke Rural Electric Cooperative, Deep East Texas Electric Cooperative, Delaware Electric Cooperative, Diverse Power Incorporated, Douglas Electric Cooperative, Dubois Rural Electric Cooperative, Dubois Rural Electric Cooperative Membership, Dunn Energy Cooperative, East River Electric Power Cooperative Inc., Eastern Illini Electric Cooperative, Electric Membership Corporation (Washington EMC), ElectriCities, Excelsior Electric Membership Corporation, Fulton County REMC, Georgia System Operations Corporation, Georgia Transmission Corporation, Grand River Dam Authority, Grant County Public Utility District, GreyStone Power, GreyStone Power Corporation, Hill County Electric Cooperative, Hoosier Energy, Houston County Electric Cooperative Inc., Illinois Electric Cooperative, Indian Electric Cooperative, Irwin EMC, Jackson EMC, Jackson Energy, Jackson Purchase Energy, Kem Electric Cooperative, Kiamichi Electric Cooperative, Lake Region Electric Cooperative, Lamb County Electric Cooperative, Large Public Power Council, Lower Colorado River Authority, Lyntegar Electric Cooperative Inc., Magnolia Electric Power, Meade County Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation, MidSouth Electric Cooperative, Midwest Energy & Communications, Minnesota Rural Electric Association, Monroe County Electric Power Association (MCEPA), Mor-Gran-Sou Electric Cooperative, Morgan County Rural Electric Association, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, Natchez Trace EPA, Nebraska Public Power District, Nobles Cooperative Electric, Nodak Electric Cooperative, North Arkansas Electric Cooperative Inc., North Dakota Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives, Northern Neck Electric Cooperative, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Omaha Public Power District, Park Electric Cooperative Inc., Pontotoc Electric Power Association, PowerSouth, PowerSouth Energy, Presque Isle Electric and Gas Co-op, Public Power Council, Roughrider Electric Cooperative, RushShelby Energy, Salt River Project, Santee Cooper, Sawnee EMC, Slope Electric Cooperative Inc., Snapping Shoals EMC, Snohomish County Public Utility District, Southeastern Electric Cooperative, Southern Illinois Power Cooperative (SIPC), Tallahatchie Valley Electric Power Association, Talquin Electric Cooperative Inc., TECA, Three Notch Electric Membership Corporation, Touchstone Energy Cooperative, Traverse Electric Cooperative Inc., Tri-County Electric Cooperative, Union County Electric Cooperative, United Cooperative Services (Texas), United Power, Wolverine Power Cooperative | | Data Center Developers (27) | Aligned Data Center, Cloud HQ, Cologix, Compass Datacenters, Core Scientific, Corscale, Crusoe, CyrusOne, DataBank, Digital Realty, EdgeConneX, Edgecore Digital Infrastructure, Equinix, Iron Mountain, Nebius, NTT Global Data Centers, Oppidan Connect Data Centers, Prologis, QTS, Rowan Digital Infrastructure, Skybox Datacenters, STACK Infrastructure, Stream Data Centers, Switch, T5, TA Realty, Vantage Data Centers | | Source: The White House, Ratepayer Protection Pledge. List reflects signatories as of July 23, 2026. Some entries appear duplicated in the source (e.g., GreyStone Power, PowerSouth, Dubois Rural Electric Cooperative). | —Sonal Patel is a POWER senior editor (@sonalcpatel, @POWERmagazine).