An Unprecedented 417-to-3 Majority Vote

On September 16th, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Ratepayer Protection Act, a bill concerning the burden of electricity costs for AI data centers, by an unprecedented 417-to-3 majority. Only three progressive Democrats opposed it, while all Republicans present voted in favor. As an accountant, I was curious about two things: what this bill actually mandates, and why such a bipartisan agreement was reached.

The Contents of the Bill – Not a "Mandatory" Act, but a "Mandatory Consideration" Act

The bill's official name is H.R. 9340, and it amends Section 111(d) of the Public Utilities Regulation and Policy Act (PURPA), enacted in 1978. The bill introduces a "large load standard" for data centers with peak power demand exceeding 100 megawatts (equivalent to the electricity consumption of approximately 80,000 average households). This standard requires data centers to bear the full cost of any additional infrastructure, such as transmission lines, substations, and power generation equipment, built to supply their electricity needs. Even if a contract is terminated, the obligation to bear the cost of already constructed infrastructure remains.

However, as an accountant, I must point out an important caveat. This bill only obligates state utility commissions to "consider" adopting this standard; the decision to actually implement it rests with each state. Ari Pescoe, a power law expert at Harvard Law School, points out that this voluntary promise of price protection does not translate into consumer protection, as state utility commissions still control how costs are actually passed on to household electricity bills.

Figures from Leading States

To predict the effectiveness of this bill, it's helpful to look at the performance of states that have already implemented similar regulations. Oregon's "POWER Act," enacted in 2025, imposes cost burdens on projects exceeding 20 megawatts, resulting in a 30% increase in electricity rates for data centers while residential rates decreased by 1.3%. Virginia also introduced regulations requiring data centers to bear the full cost of power transmission infrastructure starting in July 2026. The fact that electricity rates nationwide have risen by approximately 27% since 2019, outpacing the general consumer price index, explains the widespread bipartisan support for this bill.

Differences from the White House's "Voluntary Pledge"

Interestingly, separate from this bill, major players such as Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, Oracle, and xAI had already signed the White House-led "Ratepayer Protection Pledge" in March of this year. This pledge stipulates that companies must secure their own electricity demand through either "generating, bringing in, or purchasing," bear the costs of the associated transmission infrastructure, and pay fees regardless of whether they actually use the electricity. However, it remains merely a voluntary agreement by companies. The crucial difference between this bill and the current bill is that it attempts to create a legally binding framework. However, as mentioned earlier, even this binding force is only a buffer, requiring "state consideration."

The Senate Outcome—What 417-3 Meaning Didn't

As an accountant, the most interesting aspect is the final fate of this bill. After passing the House of Representatives, the bill was debated in the Senate, but according to reports, it failed to pass due to a block by Democratic senators and was ultimately rejected. Furthermore, the alternative bill, based on a 150-megawatt standard, was similarly blocked. The overwhelming 417-3 vote in the House proved to be no predictor in the face of the different hurdle of unanimous agreement in the Senate. As a result, the authority to allocate costs remains with the FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) review process and the individual pricing structures for large loads developed by each state's public utility commission.

What Accountants Should Consider

The "417 to 3" figure was a strong signal that the political crisis surrounding the externalities of electricity costs in the AI ​​industry was shared across party lines. However, the effectiveness of the legislation was limited by the structural constraints of the existing federal framework, PURPA, which only mandates consideration, and its failure to pass in the Senate, resulting in less institutionalization than initially anticipated. For data center operators, the practical implications are that, for the time being, the outcome of the FERC's show cause docket and the individually negotiated connection agreements for large loads in each state will continue to be the de facto determinants of cost burden. Rather than waiting for a nationwide federal standard, how to respond to state-level pricing structures remains a realistic challenge for operators.