Heinrich blocks bill on data center electricity costs

On September 17, 2026, in the Senate, Martin Heinrich blocked passage by unanimous consent of the Ratepayer Protection Act requested by Jon Husted, a bill on allocating data center electricity costs. This procedure requires that no senator object. Its interruption leaves another procedure or a compromise possible.

The bill had just passed the House of Representatives. On September 16, H.R.9340 was passed, as amended, by 417 votes to 3, in official roll call vote number 312. Gabe Evans and Kathy Castor championed this bill, intended to limit the shifting of electricity expenses for large computing facilities onto existing customers.

Considering the standards would be mandatory; adopting them would remain optional

The proposed framework covers nonresidential customers that request or enter into a contract on or after any enactment, for facilities used primarily for computing. Their combined peak electricity demand must reach 100 MW or more at a single site or campus. This scope also covers computing uses other than AI.

The standard would require covered customers to bear all additional costs of the upgrades needed to serve them, across electricity generation, transmission and distribution. It would provide for financial guarantees or contributions before work begins, as well as cost recovery when a customer terminates its contract or stops purchasing electricity.

The Ratepayer Protection Act would, however, operate through the PURPA framework. The relevant state regulatory authorities and nonregulated utilities would have to consider these standards and make a decision. Applicable law allows them to decline to implement them. The requirements in the proposed standard would therefore not automatically become a nationwide payment obligation.

Following any enactment, consideration would have to begin or a hearing be scheduled within one year, with a decision then required within two years in total. Certain comparable prior proceedings could qualify for the specified exceptions. These deadlines would govern the decision-making process without guaranteeing lower bills.

Heinrich calls for federal requirements

Martin Heinrich considers the Ratepayer Protection Act insufficiently binding and champions his GRID Savings Act, S.5199. His bill would require FERC, the federal energy regulator, to establish rules for connecting large customers to the grid, including rules on cost allocation and financial guarantees. Heinrich thus favors federal requirements to govern these connections.

Heinrich then requested passage of his own bill by unanimous consent. Bernie Moreno objected in turn. By the end of this sequence on September 17, neither bill had created any new applicable federal protection. These objections block the expedited procedure without definitively rejecting the bills.

Preventing ratepayers from paying after a customer leaves

When a data center requires new electricity infrastructure, rate rules determine how its expenses are allocated. The proposed protections would seek to shield households, small businesses and local communities from part of this burden. Guarantees would be particularly important if a large customer left the grid after the investments had been made.

Rates and rules specifically for large customers already exist in several states, Utility Dive reports. The DELTa database from SEPA and NCCETC distinguishes approved measures from proposals. Their scope depends on the applicable rules, with no uniform coverage of all ratepayers.

The allocation of expenses between operators and local communities also featured in our article on New York's framework for data centers. The Senate objections on September 17 leave that New York framework unchanged.

A new procedure or a compromise in the Senate could allow the bills to move forward. Any eventual legislative passage will need to be assessed for how binding its provisions actually are; the rates, contracts and guarantees put into effect will then clarify who funds the work and bears the risk of a customer's departure. The nearly unanimous House vote demonstrates no reduction in bills, and no savings amount has been established.