A family can use less air conditioning, switch off lights, and cut its electricity use. Those efforts mean less if its utility bill also includes the cost of serving a new data center.
Republicans should insist that companies bear the risks of their own investments. Paying an electric bill is not an agreement to invest in a data center or cover its losses. Supporting American artificial intelligence does not require putting other utility customers on the hook.
On Sept. 16, the House passed the Ratepayer Protection Act, 417-3. The bill would require state utility regulators to consider whether large electricity users, including data centers, should cover the additional infrastructure costs of serving them. That is a reasonable starting point. But requiring regulators to consider protections does not guarantee that families will receive them.
Passing a bill called the Ratepayer Protection Act is not enough. The protection needs to be in the contract before a utility commits money to the project.
I spent 33 years at Microsoft. I want American technology companies to succeed, and I see good reasons to develop AI here. But I do not think families should be asked to subsidize that success through their electric bills.
Consider a utility preparing to serve a large new data center. The developer requests a substantial amount of power. Meeting that request may require new substations, transmission lines, or other grid upgrades. Someone must finance the work before the facility begins operating.
Now suppose the project is delayed, reduced in size, or canceled. The work may already be complete. The utility still expects to recover its investment.
Before approving that arrangement, regulators should ask who owes the money if the developer’s plans fall apart. Households and small businesses should not become responsible simply because the utility can pass the costs on to them.
Ohio has already addressed part of this problem. In July 2025, its utility commission approved requirements for large new AEP Ohio data center customers to pay for at least 85% of their contracted power requirements, even if they use less. The goal is to keep other customers from paying for infrastructure that a developer requested but never fully uses.
Other states do not have to copy Ohio’s rules. But before a utility makes expensive grid upgrades for a company, that company should commit to paying for them, even if its plans change.
That means contracts setting minimum payments, requiring money or other security to back those commitments, and spelling out what a developer owes if it leaves. The public should also be able to understand how costs are divided before regulators approve the deal.
The answer is not always simple. A grid improvement built partly for a data center might also improve service for nearby homes or businesses. Regulators should account for those benefits. Developers should pay the share of costs their projects create. If a utility proposes charging other customers for part of the work, it should demonstrate how those customers benefit.
I am not arguing that data centers are responsible for every increase in electricity prices. Fuel costs, aging equipment, and other demands on the grid also matter. Blaming AI for the entire bill would be as careless as assuming its expansion carries no cost.
Protecting ratepayers does not mean blocking development. We should also make additional electricity easier to produce and deliver. Faster permitting for needed generation and transmission can help accommodate growth. Allowing demand to expand while obstructing new supply is a poor approach to affordability.
Residents deserve an answer to a straightforward question: What will this project do to my electric bill? New jobs and investment matter, but people also need to know what they will be expected to pay.
Setting those terms before construction gives developers a clear account of what they owe and residents a chance to challenge what they are being asked to pay.
YOUR ELECTRIC BILL ISN’T HIGH BECAUSE OF AI. IT’S HIGH BECAUSE OF RED TAPE
If a project makes financial sense only when other utility customers carry some of its risk, regulators should question the deal.
Republicans should welcome the investment and help make construction possible. They should also insist that developers back their commitments with their own money. The household down the street should not be the fallback payer if a multibillion-dollar project fails.
David W. Falls is a retired Microsoft engineering program manager who spent over 30 years leading large-scale engineering and technology programs through major industry transitions, including the rise of personal computing, the internet, and mobile systems. He now writes about technology, science, politics, and culture. His work has appeared in RealClearScience, the Humanist, the Space Review, Interalia Magazine, and other publications. He is the author of God’s AI Reckoning: The Final Revelation and The Great Silence: What Remains After Belief. His forthcoming book is Who Owns You? AI, Identity, and the Fight to Control the Digital Self.