Data center electricity bills: a breakdown and comparison

Side by side

Where things stand, as of October 22, 2026: None is law. H.R. 9340 passed the House and remains on the Senate calendar; S. 5199 and S. 5653 were referred to Senate Energy and Natural Resources.

On a narrow screen, scroll the table sideways. Numbered references lead to the source guide.

Sources for the table: H.R. 9340 as passed by the House (EH); identical text placed on the Senate calendar [24] · S. 5199 as introduced · S. 5653 as introduced · Status data from the official bill status files (H.R. 9340, S. 5199, S. 5653) · House Roll Call 312.

1. H.R. 9340: states would have to consider a standard

What it would do. It would add a new federal "standard" to the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA). State utility regulators (and nonregulated utilities) would have to consider the standard but would not have to adopt it (see "Why 'consider' matters" below).

Under the standard, rates for a large-load customer "shall be designed to recover" the full, incremental cost of any generation, transmission or distribution upgrade needed to serve it, including if the customer ends its contract or stops buying power.

The standard also provides that, before building the upgrade, the utility require financial assurances or contributions. [25]

Why "consider" matters. PURPA standards work differently from direct mandates. Under existing law, each state regulator "shall consider each standard … and make a determination concerning whether or not it is appropriate to implement" it. The law also says "nothing in this subsection prohibits" a state from deciding it is not appropriate, and a state "may, to the extent consistent with otherwise applicable State law, … decline to implement" a standard.

Its determination must be in writing after public notice and a hearing. If it declines a standard it found appropriate, it must state its reasons in writing. [26] H.R. 9340 would set the clock: start within 1 year, finish and decide within 2 years. [27]

Who is covered. Non-residential customers that, on or after enactment, request to enter into, or enter into, a contract or other agreement for the sale of electric energy for facilities that primarily run IT infrastructure for data storage and computing, with combined peak demand of 100 MW or more at a single site or campus. [28]

Exception. PURPA §112(b) and (c) (the deadlines to begin and finish considering the standard, and the fallback requirement to consider it in the next rate proceeding if those deadlines are missed) do not apply to the new standard for a particular electric utility if, before enactment, its State had implemented the standard (or a comparable one) for that utility, the State regulator (or, for a nonregulated utility, the utility itself) had conducted a proceeding to consider implementing it for that utility, or the State legislature had voted on implementing it for that utility [29]. [30]

2. S. 5199: FERC would set large-load interconnection rules

What it would do. It would add a new section 224 to the Federal Power Act. FERC would get jurisdiction over connecting any "covered large load" to interstate transmission, and it would have to issue a final rule within 1 year setting standards and procedures. [31]

Who pays for what. The FERC rule would have to:

• Assign 100% of the costs of "Interconnection Facilities" and "Direct Assignment Facilities" directly to the large-load customer. [32]
• Allocate "Network Upgrade" costs to the large-load customer, with those costs "credited back against transmission service charges," following the model of FERC's existing interconnection procedures. [33]
• Require payment of allocated costs and financial security to protect any customer from unrecovered costs if a covered large load fails to proceed or perform. [34]
• Require cost disclosure to the customer, state commissions and FERC, and a study process that protects other customers from speculative requests. [35]

Who is covered. Any new or expanded nonresidential load, or group of such loads under common ownership, control or affiliation at one site or at contiguous or adjacent sites sharing electric infrastructure (including phased development), with requested or projected peak demand of 150 MW or more behind a single point of interconnection. Co-located generation or storage would not reduce the count. The bill is not limited to data centers. [36]

Limits. It would not apply to transmission wholly within ERCOT [37].

Its cost-allocation rules would cover transmission-side facilities (Interconnection Facilities, Direct Assignment Facilities and Network Upgrades). The text contains no provision on retail rates or local distribution costs.

Associated generation, storage or flexibility would enter only through the interconnection and study process [38].

3. S. 5653: a statutory cost-recovery floor and transmission pricing (Secs. 2107 and 2114)

S. 5653 is a broad permitting bill. The data center provisions are in Division B, Title I (Electric Transmission). [39]

Sec. 2107(b): a statutory floor [40].

• Covered load: data center or high-density computing load (AI training or inference, cloud or hosting, crypto mining) of 20 MW or more at a single site or commonly owned sites, or expected to reach 20 MW at full buildout. Computing that is ancillary to some other industrial or commercial use is excluded. [41]
• Limits on charging other customers: "No portion of the incremental cost may be allocated to, or recovered in the rates of, any customer other than a covered load, subject to the limitations described in subsection (e)." "Incremental cost" covers generation or storage and transmission and distribution costs that would have been avoided without the load. The utility would estimate it at or around the time the load begins operating, subject to approval by FERC or a State, as appropriate. [42]
• Exit and assurances: cost recovery would continue if the load leaves early, and financial assurance would be required before building generation, transmission or distribution for it. [43]
• State powers: states could charge more than cost and credit the surplus to other customers, run open seasons or competitive solicitations, require the load to bring its own new generation, require limited or non-firm transmission service, and treat covered loads as a separate class with terms less favorable than those for other large industrial, manufacturing or commercial loads [44]. The section says the subsection (c)(1) powers are reserved state authority over retail electric service that it recognizes rather than creates [45].
• Timing: the floor and state-authority provisions (subsections (b) and (c)) would apply to covered loads that interconnect on or after enactment. Arrangements approved by FERC or a State before enactment would remain in effect [46].

Sec. 2107(a): FERC transmission pricing. Congress would find it "not just and reasonable" for utilities to charge customers seeking transmission service for computing-load owners or operators less than embedded and incremental expansion costs.

FERC would have to revise its 1994 transmission pricing policy statement within 270 days so that utilities charge customers seeking transmission service on behalf of computing-load owners or operators both embedded and incremental cost, with incremental payments credited to the utility's annual transmission revenue requirement to prevent double recovery from other customers. Non-firm service would get a lower cost.

A proposed rule would have to follow within 270 days after the revised policy statement is published in the Federal Register, and a final rule within 1 year after the proposal.

This subsection sets no MW threshold; it covers computing sites connected to the bulk-power system [47].

Sec. 2114: data. EIA would have to revise Form 861 to include load from "data center entities," no later than 90 days before the first April 1 after enactment. There is no MW threshold. [48]

Savings clause. Nothing in the title would give FERC authority over retail sales or local distribution. [49]

Sponsors and cosponsors

• H.R. 9340: Sponsored by Rep. Gabe Evans (R-CO-8). 42 cosponsors, including original cosponsor Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL-14). [50]
• S. 5199: Sponsored by Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM). 2 cosponsors: Sens. Duckworth (D-IL) and Cortez Masto (D-NV). [51]
• S. 5653: Sponsored by Sen. Capito (R-WV), the Environment and Public Works chair [52]. Cosponsored by Sens. Lee (R-UT), Whitehouse (D-RI) and Heinrich (D-NM). [53]

Deadlines if enacted

• H.R. 9340: start considering within 1 year; finish and decide within 2 years (new PURPA §112(b)(9)). [54]
• S. 5199: FERC final rule within 1 year of enactment (new FPA §224(c)(1)). [55]
• S. 5653: FERC policy revision within 270 days of enactment; proposed rule within 270 days after the revised policy is published in the Federal Register; final rule within 1 year after the proposed rule (Sec. 2107(a)(3)–(4)). EIA would have to revise Form 861 no later than 90 days before the first April 1 after enactment (Sec. 2114(b)). [56]

Status and procedural history

H.R. 9340. After House passage, senators sought in September to bring the bill up in the Senate; it did not get past the motion to proceed.

• Sept 16: passed the House 417–3 under suspension of the rules (two-thirds required) [57].
• Sept 17: a unanimous-consent request to pass it drew an objection [58].
• Sept 28–30: the motion to proceed was made three times [59].
• Sept 30: a vote to limit debate on the motion to proceed was not invoked, 57–43, with three-fifths of senators (60) required [60]. The motion to proceed was then withdrawn [61].
• It remains on the Senate calendar (Cal. No. 684) [62]. No further action through Oct 22 [63].

S. 5199. Introduced July 30; referred to Senate Energy and Natural Resources [64]. A request to pass it by unanimous consent drew an objection on Sept 17 [65].

S. 5653. Introduced Sept 30; referred to Senate Energy and Natural Resources [66].

Federal cost estimates

CBO estimated H.R. 9340 (as ordered reported July 21, 2026, which is the same text the House passed) would not affect the federal budget. It would impose an intergovernmental mandate on state commissions. CBO called the costs small and well below the UMRA threshold ($107 million in 2026). It would impose no private-sector mandate [67].

As of October 22, 2026, the official bill status records list no CBO cost estimate for S. 5199 or S. 5653.

Neither the bill texts nor CBO give a household bill-savings figure.

Open questions (not settled by the official texts)

• S. 5199 network upgrades: costs are allocated to the customer but "credited back against transmission service charges." How much a large load would pay in the end would depend on the FERC rule. The net effect is not settled by the text.
• S. 5653 enforcement: new FPA §228(b)(1) bars shifting incremental cost onto other customers, while Sec. 2115(b) withholds FERC authority over retail sales and distribution. Who would enforce the floor on a state-regulated utility's retail rates? The text does not settle this.
• Which utilities would new PURPA §112(i) exempt from H.R. 9340's deadlines? The test is utility by utility: whether, before enactment, the utility's State had implemented the standard (or a comparable one) for it, its regulator (or the nonregulated utility) had conducted a proceeding to consider implementing one for it, or the State legislature had voted on implementing one for it. No official record checked for this comparison counts these utilities, so the number is not established.
• S. 5653 text may change. The official record shows no committee action beyond referral (Sept 30).

Additional legislation outside this three-bill comparison

Related Senate bill. Sen. Jon Husted (R-OH) introduced S. 5028, also titled the Ratepayer Protection Act, on July 16, 2026 (16 cosponsors; referred to Energy and Natural Resources). Its text is substantially similar to, but not identical with, the House-passed H.R. 9340. (bill status; S. 5028 as introduced)

Related House bill. H.R. 10322, Data Center Fair Share Act (Rep. Subramanyam, D-VA-10, introduced Sept 8, 2026), is listed as related to H.R. 9340 [68]. Its text is not summarized in this comparison.

A fourth approach, briefly: pause construction

The Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act (S. 4214, Sen. Sanders, I-VT, introduced Mar 25, 2026, no cosponsors; H.R. 9442, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY-14, introduced June 24, 2026, 20 cosponsors) is listed as an identical bill pair. It would bar starting or continuing construction or upgrades of new or existing "artificial intelligence data centers" until laws are enacted that provide for federal pre-release review of AI products, sharing AI's economic gains with workers, and conditions on post-moratorium data centers (no increase in consumer utility bills, no added climate or environmental harm, community approval, no subsidies, union jobs), and that expressly end the moratorium (Sec. 3(b)).

It would also require the Commerce Secretary to bar exports of computing hardware for use in AI data centers or large-scale AI training or deployment to countries that lack laws comparable to those the moratorium requires (Sec. 4).

It covers commonly owned or controlled facilities either used for developing or operating AI models at scale (no MW threshold), or exceeding 20 MW and designed for 20 kW or more per server rack or for liquid cooling (Sec. 3(a)). Both bills are in committee. (S. 4214 text; H.R. 9442 text; bill status for S. 4214 and H.R. 9442)

Attributed statements (not findings about bill effects)

These are senators' floor remarks, quoted from the Congressional Record.

• Sen. Husted (R-OH) said H.R. 9340 "would require State utility regulators to consider standards" so large loads pay the full incremental costs, and called it "pro-growth and pro-innovation." [69]
• Sen. Heinrich (D-NM), sponsor of S. 5199 and a cosponsor of S. 5653, said on Sept 17 that "it is not enough for us to tell States to consider making data centers pay for grid updates" [70]. On Sept 30, opposing the motion to proceed, he called H.R. 9340 "nothing more than a messaging bill on the eve of an election" [71].
• Sen. Moreno (R-OH) said of S. 5199: "the last thing we need is a new Federal interconnection queue," and called its FERC rulemaking route "bureaucratic nonsense." [72]