A substantive narrowing of scope. v2 modifies the definition of "large-load customer" in Section 2(a)(22)(C) to specifically target facilities primarily operating information technology infrastructure, thereby limiting the types of non-residential electric consumers subject to the new cost recovery and financial assurance standards. Minor technical and clarifying amendments were also made to conforming provisions.
Ratepayer Protection Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Evans, Gabe [R-CO-8]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 30, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to shift the financial burden of significant utility infrastructure upgrades required by large data centers and similar high-demand IT operations directly onto those customers, rather than allowing costs to be spread across the general ratepayer base.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) to establish a new federal standard requiring electric utilities to recover the full, incremental costs of infrastructure upgrades (generation, transmission, or distribution) from "large-load customers" that necessitate these upgrades. It also mandates that these large-load customers provide financial assurances or contributions for such upgrades before they are made. The bill defines "large-load customers" specifically as non-residential consumers primarily operating IT infrastructure (like data centers) with a peak demand of 100 megawatts or more.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill protects residential and small business ratepayers from subsidizing the massive infrastructure investments required by rapidly growing, energy-intensive industries like data centers. They contend that these large-load customers, who often have significant bargaining power and may relocate, should bear the full cost of the specialized infrastructure built to serve them, ensuring fairness and preventing stranded assets if these customers leave.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that this standard could stifle economic development and discourage the establishment or expansion of large-load facilities, particularly data centers, in certain regions. They may also contend that spreading infrastructure costs across the broader ratepayer base is a common practice that benefits the entire grid by increasing capacity and reliability, and that singling out specific industries could create an uneven playing field or lead to higher overall energy costs in the long run.
The bill is very concise and can be read quickly, allowing ample time for stakeholders to understand its core provisions.
Section 2(a), adding new paragraph (22)(A) to Section 111(d) of PURPA.
Mandating Full Cost Recovery from Large-Load Customers
This provision requires that any electric utility charging a large-load customer for electricity must design its rates to ensure that the large-load customer pays the entire additional cost of any new power generation, transmission lines, or distribution system upgrades specifically needed to serve that customer. This cost recovery obligation applies even if the large-load customer later cancels their contract or stops buying electricity from the utility.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this ensures fairness, preventing general ratepayers from subsidizing specialized infrastructure for large, often transient, industrial customers. It aligns costs with beneficiaries and reduces the risk of stranded assets for utilities.
Critics contend
Critics might argue this could deter large-load customers, particularly data centers, from locating or expanding in areas, potentially hindering economic growth and job creation. They may also contend that such customers contribute to the tax base and overall economic activity, justifying some shared infrastructure costs.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the principle of cost causation (those who cause the cost should pay) against potential impacts on economic development and regional competitiveness for attracting large energy consumers.
Section 2(a), adding new paragraph (22)(B) to Section 111(d) of PURPA.
Requiring Upfront Financial Guarantees from Large-Load Customers
Before an electric utility can begin any generation, transmission, or distribution upgrades needed to serve a large-load customer, this provision mandates that the utility must first require that large-load customer to provide financial assurances or direct contributions to cover the cost of those upgrades. This acts as a safeguard to ensure utilities are not left with unrecoverable costs if a project is delayed or a customer defaults.
Section 2(a), adding new paragraph (22)(C) to Section 111(d) of PURPA.
Specific Definition for Targeted Customers
This section precisely defines which non-residential electric consumers are considered "large-load customers" under the new standard. It specifies that these are customers who, on or after the bill's enactment, request or enter into contracts for electricity for facilities that primarily operate information technology infrastructure (like data centers for storage and computing) and have a combined peak electricity demand of 100 megawatts or more at a single location or campus.
This provision exempts states from the federal mandate to consider and determine the new large-load customer standard if, before the bill's enactment, the state already implemented a comparable standard, conducted a proceeding to consider it, or its legislature voted on its implementation for an electric utility.
Section 2(b)(1)(C), adding new subsection (i) to Section 112 of PURPA.
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to acknowledge and avoid redundant federal mandates where states have already taken action. It ensures federalism principles are respected.
Case for: Supporters argue this respects state sovereignty and avoids imposing unnecessary federal burdens on states that have already addressed or considered similar issues, streamlining implementation.
Case against: Critics might argue that the criteria for "comparable standard" or "conducted a proceeding" could be open to interpretation, potentially allowing some states to avoid the intent of the federal standard without truly addressing the underlying issue.
Estimated impact: This provision could significantly reduce the number of states required to undertake new regulatory proceedings, depending on how many states have already acted on similar issues.