A federal attempt to keep data center grid costs off other customers' bills has stalled. Late last month, the Senate voted 57-43 on cloture for the motion to proceed to H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act, three votes shy of the 60 needed, according to the Senate roll call. The House had passed the bill 417-3 on September 16.

Passing the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) would have created a standard for loads of 100 megawatts (MW) or more. As described by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, state utility commissions would have to consider requiring those customers to pay the full incremental cost of the generation, transmission and distribution built to serve them. Supporters presented it as a possible national baseline for large-load cost recovery.

Senate Opponents Wanted a Mandate Instead of a PURPA Standard States Only Consider

The senators who blocked it were arguing for tougher terms on data centers. Their complaint was that the bill was too weak. Under PURPA's framework, states must evaluate a standard but are free to reject it.

Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico blocked an attempt to pass the bill by unanimous consent on September 17. In a statement that day, he offered his own GRID Savings Act, which would require large-load customers to pay for the facilities connecting them, and called for "real legislation with real teeth." Sen. Bernie Moreno objected to that request in turn. After the cloture vote, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada described the House bill's language as voluntary and unenforceable.

California and Virginia Moved on Large-Load Costs in September

Governor Gavin Newsom signed a package of data center laws on September 22 that, according to his office, creates a separate rate class for high-consumption facilities, requires upfront payment for grid upgrades and adds long-term contract and minimum payment obligations. In Virginia, Governor Abigail Spanberger's Data Center Accountability Framework, announced September 18, pairs an executive order already in effect with legislation proposed for 2027. It would make data centers pay for transmission built solely for them and post stronger upfront financial commitments.

Regional grid regulators face the same question at a larger scale. In a September 29 concurrence on PJM Interconnection's reliability backstop procurement, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Commissioner David Rosner wrote that the guidance should let PJM assign costs "to the zones with data center growth." He also called on states to set large-load retail tariffs, enforce collateral requirements and decide which customers are curtailed first.

For developers, the practical effect is that cost commitments are arriving earlier and varying by state. Minimum bills, collateral and long contract terms already make large-load tariffs behave like long-term debt on a company's books. Regulators are also looking past connection costs, as Georgia's inquiry into fuel cost shifting shows. Without a federal standard, state commissions and FERC dockets will keep supplying the answer, and a developer weighing sites in two states may face two very different sets of obligations.