Ratepayer Protection Act

Bill Number: H.R. 9340
Origin Chamber: House
Congress: 119th Congress, Session 2
Policy Area: Energy
Status: Passed House
Latest Action: 2026-09-30: Motion to proceed to consideration of measure withdrawn in Senate. (CR S5199)
Last Updated: 2026-10-02T15:39:58Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose The legislation amends the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to create a federal standard requiring electric utilities to recover the full incremental costs of any upgrades needed to serve large-load customers, such as data centers. Its goal is to ensure these costs are not shifted to other ratepayers.

Key Provisions

Cost Recovery Standard: Rates for large-load customers must cover the complete incremental costs of generation, transmission, or distribution upgrades required to serve their load. This applies even if the customer ends its contract or stops purchasing electricity.
Financial Assurances Requirement: Before any upgrade, the utility must obtain financial assurances or contributions from the large-load customer to cover the costs.
Definition of Large-Load Customer: Applies to non-residential customers requesting or entering agreements for facilities primarily used for information technology infrastructure (data storage and computing) with a peak demand of 100 megawatts or more at a single site or campus.
State Implementation Timelines: States and nonregulated utilities must begin considering the standard within one year and complete determinations within two years of enactment.
Exemptions: States that have already implemented a comparable standard, held proceedings, or voted on it before enactment are not required to revisit the issue.

Significant Changes to Existing Law This bill adds a new paragraph (22) to Section 111(d) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, establishing the first federal standard specifically addressing cost allocation for large-load customers. It includes conforming amendments to Sections 112 and 124 that set deadlines and clarify how prior state actions affect the new requirements.

Potential Impacts

On Government Agencies: State regulatory authorities and nonregulated utilities must conduct proceedings to consider the standard, potentially increasing administrative workload.
On Citizens: Aims to protect residential and smaller commercial ratepayers by preventing them from bearing costs of upgrades for large facilities.
On International Relations: No direct effects are outlined in the legislation.
On Utilities: Requires utilities to secure upfront funding or guarantees from large customers before investing in infrastructure.

Main Stakeholders Affected

Electric utilities (both regulated and nonregulated).
State regulatory authorities responsible for ratemaking.
Large-load customers, primarily operators of data centers and similar high-demand IT facilities.
Residential and other ratepayers who may benefit from cost protections.
State legislatures involved in energy policy decisions.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications The bill creates a uniform federal consideration requirement for states under existing utility regulation frameworks, while preserving state flexibility through exemptions for prior actions. It does not mandate specific outcomes but directs states to evaluate the standard, which could lead to varied implementation across jurisdictions. No constitutional issues are addressed in the text.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Evans, Gabe [R-CO-8]

Cosponsors (42)

Rep. Castor, Kathy [D-FL-14], Rep. Van Drew, Jefferson [R-NJ-2], Rep. Joyce, John [R-PA-13], Rep. McCaul, Michael T. [R-TX-10], Rep. Baumgartner, Michael [R-WA-5], Rep. Fuller, Clay [R-GA-14], Rep. Wittman, Robert J. [R-VA-1], Rep. Onder, Robert F. [R-MO-3], Rep. Hageman, Harriet M. [R-WY-At Large], Rep. Kean, Thomas H. [R-NJ-7], Rep. Van Orden, Derrick [R-WI-3], Rep. McGuire, John J. [R-VA-5], Rep. Griffith, H. Morgan [R-VA-9], Rep. Mackenzie, Ryan [R-PA-7], Rep. Bishop, Sanford D. [D-GA-2], Rep. McClellan, Jennifer L. [D-VA-4], Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5], Rep. Lee, Laurel M. [R-FL-15], Rep. Cuellar, Henry [D-TX-28], Rep. Cline, Ben [R-VA-6], Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1], Rep. McDonald Rivet, Kristen [D-MI-8], Rep. Boebert, Lauren [R-CO-4], Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17], Rep. Van Duyne, Beth [R-TX-24], Rep. Finstad, Brad [R-MN-1], Rep. Crank, Jeff [R-CO-5], Rep. Moore, Riley M. [R-WV-2], Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA-1], Rep. Jordan, Jim [R-OH-4], Rep. Kiggans, Jennifer A. [R-VA-2], Rep. Moolenaar, John R. [R-MI-2], Rep. Weber, Randy K. Sr. [R-TX-14], Rep. Smith, Christopher H. [R-NJ-4], Rep. Goodlander, Maggie [D-NH-2], Rep. Huizenga, Bill [R-MI-4], Rep. Hurd, Jeff [R-CO-3], Rep. Valadao, David G. [R-CA-22], Rep. Barrett, Tom [R-MI-7], Rep. De La Cruz, Monica [R-TX-15], Rep. Fallon, Pat [R-TX-4], Rep. Flood, Mike [R-NE-1]

Recent Actions

2026-09-30: Motion to proceed to consideration of measure withdrawn in Senate. (CR S5199)
2026-09-30: Cloture on the motion to proceed to the measure not invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 57 - 43. Record Vote Number: 254. (Roll call 254)
2026-09-30: Motion to proceed to consideration of measure made in Senate. (CR S5199)
2026-09-29: Motion to proceed to consideration of measure made in Senate.
2026-09-28: Cloture motion on the motion to proceed to the measure presented in Senate. (CR S5065)
2026-09-28: Motion to proceed to consideration of measure made in Senate. (CR S5065)
2026-09-24: Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 684.
2026-09-23: Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
2026-09-17: Received in the Senate.
2026-09-16: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
2026-09-16: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 417 - 3 (Roll no. 312). (text: CR H5656-5657) (Roll call 312)
2026-09-16: Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 417 - 3 (Roll no. 312). (text: CR H5656-5657) (Roll call 312)
2026-09-16: Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5958-5959)
2026-09-15: At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
2026-09-15: DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 9340.

Bill Versions

Ratepayer Protection Act — issued 2026-09-16 — PDF (8 pages)
Ratepayer Protection Act — issued 2026-06-18 — PDF (5 pages)
Ratepayer Protection Act — issued 2026-09-24 — PDF (8 pages)
Ratepayer Protection Act — issued 2026-09-10 — PDF (8 pages)