Data centers must now pay their own grid-upgrade costs, not ratepayers
H.R. 9340 — Ratepayer Protection Act · Filed by Gabe Evans (R-CO) · 42 cosponsors · Introduced Jun 18, 2026 · Passed chamber
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill amends federal utility law to require electric utilities to charge large data centers (100+ megawatts peak demand) the full cost of any grid upgrades needed to serve them, including costs if the data center later leaves. Utilities must also require data centers to post financial assurances upfront before building those upgrades. States have 1–2 years to adopt this standard or explain why not.
Why we flagged it
The bill's operative mechanism is a cost-allocation rule: it shifts the burden of grid-upgrade costs from general ratepayers to the specific large customers (data centers) whose operations trigger those upgrades. This is a structural reform to utility ratemaking, not a subsidy or deregulation.
What the text implies
- Data centers may face higher upfront costs and financial-assurance requirements, potentially slowing expansion in regions with aging grids or high upgrade costs.
- States retain authority to reject or modify the standard if they have already acted; this creates a patchwork of rules across jurisdictions.
- The definition of 'large-load customer' is narrowly tailored to data centers (IT infrastructure, 100+ MW), leaving other industrial large-load customers (steel mills, refineries, etc.) potentially unaffected by this standard.
- Utilities may pass through upgrade costs more aggressively to data centers, which could shift investment patterns toward regions with newer, cheaper-to-upgrade grids.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
Ordinary ratepayers (residential and small-business customers) avoid subsidizing expensive grid upgrades built solely to serve large data centers. Data centers, which generate significant private profit, now bear their own infrastructure costs rather than shifting them to the general rate base.
Who stands to gain
- residential ratepayers (avoid subsidy of data-center infrastructure)
- small-business ratepayers (avoid subsidy of data-center infrastructure)
Named in the bill
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), State regulatory authorities, Electric utilities, Data centers (large-load customers), House Committee on Energy and Commerce
Where it stands
42 cosponsors: 35 Republicans, 7 Democrats.
- Jun 18, 2026 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Jun 18, 2026 — Referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce · Congress.gov: “Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy”
- Jun 24, 2026 — Markup held in committee · Congress.gov: “Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held”
- Jul 21, 2026 — Reported out of committee · Congress.gov: “Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 52 - 0”
- Sep 15, 2026 — Floor vote scheduled · Congress.gov: “Mr. Guthrie moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended”
- Sep 16, 2026 — Passed the House · Congress.gov: “On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required)…”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
47 lobbying clients named this bill on 47 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $24,516,394 in lobbying spend. A filing names 14 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.
More lobbying clients named this bill than 99% of bills with at least one filing.
Gabe Evans, the sponsor, reported $1,523,467 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle. $13,500 of that came from 5 PACs tied to these lobbying clients.
- American Petroleum Institute — $2,780,000 on 1 filing
- American Chemistry Council — $2,570,000 on 1 filing
- Duke Energy Corporation — $2,280,000 on 1 filing
- Oracle Corporation — $2,000,000 on 1 filing
- Edison Electric Institute — $1,689,193 on 1 filing
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 22, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (4,516 characters) on Jul 9, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 22, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Data centers must now pay their own grid-upgrade costs, not ratepayers” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr9340 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.