What they said. What they meant.

“I support this bill. But I do not think it is good enough. Data centers are driving up electric prices. Prices are very high now. The costs are over $30 billion just in the mid-Atlantic. People are paying those costs. Big Tech is not. This is happening all over the country. People are worried about AI, jobs, their property, and their future. Electricity prices are going up fast. The grid is strained. The air and water are polluted. People are tired of Big Tech taking over and causing problems. President Trump and Republicans don't care about people's concerns. They want to let Big Tech build data centers with no rules. The bill tells states to think about making data centers pay for their own costs. That is good, but it is just one small step. The bill does not do enough. It does not change federal costs. It does not give states the data they need to make data centers pay. Data centers should bring their own power and be the first to get cut off if there are problems. Another bill would study these issues. It passed committee. But Republicans did not let us vote on it. I will keep working on this issue. People are angry about data centers and AI. If we can't get strong rules, we should stop building new data centers. This bill is not enough. But it is a start. I want colleagues to vote for the bill.”

“I want the House to pass this bill, but it does not go far enough. Tech companies are building large data centers that drive up electric bills for regular people. This bill tells states to consider making data centers pay for the power grid upgrades they need. It is a good start, but we need much stronger rules to protect communities and lower power costs.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act. Everyone knows that data centers are helping drive electricity prices to record highs this year. Just in the mid-Atlantic over the past few years, data centers have increased electric bills by over $30 billion. By and large, it has not been the data centers that have been footing the bill. It has been our constituents. This problem is happening across the Nation, from Texas to California, from Florida to Washington State. It doesn't matter if you are in a red State or a blue State. Your prices have gone up. Americans, Mr. Speaker, are concerned about what data centers and Big Tech's push for more AI means for their communities, jobs, property values, and the future. Electricity prices are skyrocketing. The electric grid is strained. Our clean air and water are being polluted. Noise is wearing on our communities' health and patience. People, frankly, are sick and tired of corporate special interests and Big Tech billionaires taking over their neighborhoods and threatening their utility bills, air, water, and property. Unfortunately, these very real concerns are repeatedly swept to the sidelines, minimized, or ridiculed by President Trump and Republican congressional leaders. Last month, Trump posted on social media that communities that opposed data centers must want to end up being backward and poor. The President, in my opinion, is out of touch on this issue, and the American people are demanding action. That is the reality we are living in right now, where President Trump wants to continue to give Big Tech free rein to build data centers, with no Federal guardrails. This bill is a start in addressing the impact that data centers have on our power bills, but this particular bill does not go far enough to ensure that Big Tech and other data center owners fully pay for the energy use and demand that they create. The bill requires State utility regulators to consider--and I say ``consider''--mandating that the electricity prices that data centers pay fully account for all their costs that they impose on the grid. This includes new and upgraded power plants, high-voltage transmission lines, and local power lines. We can all agree that data centers must pay their fair share and that the data centers themselves allegedly agree, but this bill, I do believe, is one small step in that direction. The bill, as I said, isn't perfect. It also only addresses one small part of the puzzle. It does not change how wholesale generation or transmission costs are allocated at the Federal level. It doesn't push for the transparency and data-transfer mechanisms that State regulators need to ensure that data centers actually are paying their fair share. Data centers must bring their own clean electricity generation capacity onto the grid and be willing to get curtailed first when there are grid reliability issues. Now, Representative Landsman from Ohio has a bill that would kick FERC into gear to start studying some of those issues. It passed the Energy and Commerce Committee unanimously nearly 2 months ago, but unfortunately, House Republican leadership did not include that bill on the floor this week. Regardless of what happens with this bill in the Senate, I will make a commitment to the American people, Mr. Speaker. Americans across the country are furious about the unchecked development of data centers and artificial intelligence. They are furious about what it means for their communities, for their jobs, or even for their lives. I promise that this bill is not the end of our focus on these issues. It is only the beginning. I have repeatedly said that we need strong guardrails on data centers and the impact they have on our communities, our environment, and our bills. If we can't establish those strong guardrails, then it is my belief that we will need to establish a moratorium on constructing new data centers. This bill by itself, or even in combination with a number of other bills we are considering this week, is simply not enough, but it is a start. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I want my bill to pass. It says big data centers pay for their own electricity upgrades. Regular people shouldn't pay for that. Electricity is expensive. People show me their bills. It makes me sad. Big data centers use a lot of power. They use a lot more every year. Big Tech companies are very rich. Regular people aren't rich. They shouldn't pay for Big Tech's stuff. My bill is a start. It's not enough. But it's a start. States can add more rules. Some states already do. Virginia does. Minnesota does. Kansas does. Florida too. My bill also lets local people say if they want a data center. Some places don't want them. Hillsborough County doesn't. We need to fix the power grid. It's old. People pay too much. My bill is fair. I want it to pass.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. Massive tech data centers use huge amounts of power and force electric companies to upgrade the power grid. Right now, normal customers pay for those upgrades through higher electric bills. This bill makes the data centers pay for the upgrades they need, not everyday families.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, the Ratepayer Protection Act. I am proud to lead this bipartisan bill with Congressman Evans to protect my neighbors from unfairly paying for the energy needs of large AI data centers. Mr. Speaker, all across America, families, farmers, and small business owners fear the arrival of their electric bill every month. Too many are struggling under the weight of soul-crushing energy bills, and it comes at a time especially where everything costs more--your groceries, gas, diesel, healthcare, and housing. Many of my neighbors back in the Tampa Bay area show me their electric bills. They are exorbitant, and it is gut-wrenching. They are not alone because across the country, electricity prices are up on average 15 percent, but much higher in many places. But now there is a new stressor: massive hyperscale data centers are connecting to the grid. These are energy hogs. They are massive. The descriptors know no end. When a data center or other large load comes online, it can trigger massive upgrades--new power plants, transmission lines, local transformers--and typically those costs are passed along to ratepayers, and that is not fair. Our neighbors should not be stuck paying for the energy infrastructure of the wealthiest countries in the world. The Ratepayer Protection Act says that the data center pays for its own upgrades, not the rest of us. These monumental hyperscale data centers can span hundreds of thousands of square feet. They host thousands of servers, computer storage, networks, and then they have these giant cooling systems that also require massive amounts of energy as well. Massive hyperscale data centers can continuously consume over 100 megawatts, with the largest facilities consuming over 650 megawatts. That is comparable to the energy use of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of homes. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, right now data centers consume about 4.4 percent of all electricity in America, but they predict that that will go up to 12 percent of the total electricity consumption in America by just 2028. Mr. Speaker, hyperscale data centers are being constructed by the wealthiest Big Tech corporations on the planet. As hardworking Americans are just trying to make ends meet, they shouldn't carry Big Tech's data center load as well. That is why we hammered out the bipartisan Ratepayer Protection Act, to ensure that data centers pay the full cost of their energy demand and upgrades. It says that if a company wants to build a data center, they should pay for the power and grid upgrades they need, not the rest of us. This bill will require those data centers to cover all the costs. It is an important first step. I know some people say this is not enough. It is not enough. It is not enough, but it does provide some first steps. Congress has to do more. We should set stricter requirements for States to report their progress to Congress so we can ensure the bill is enforced. We should incentivize data centers to be empowered by clean energy and prioritize projects that can reduce demand during peak hours. But notably, this bill does allow States to do some of those things. The States now can set additional specific guardrails. For example, States can require that data centers are powered by clean energy and don't damage local water supplies. They can require investments in grid-enhancing technologies or virtual power plants. States can even require that data centers fund weatherization initiatives or deployment of energy-saving batteries, rooftop solar, and heat pumps. For example, Virginia is requiring data centers to cover new transmission and distribution capacity costs. Minnesota requires data centers to pay into an energy conservation and weatherization fund to benefit working-class neighbors. Kansas incentivized data centers to participate in demand response programs to reduce peak demand. This bill also empowers local communities to make decisions on the siting and building of data centers. It allows for robust community input, not NDAs, nondisclosure agreements, where they try to sneak in. For example, in Florida, at least 20 counties and municipalities passed or discussed very strict guardrails on data centers. In my home county, Hillsborough County, many say that is not the appropriate place for a data center because we don't have the water resources and we don't have the electricity yet to do that. There are places in America that don't want them. We need to keep working on this, but this is a very important first step. These are the wealthiest corporations in America. There is no reason why the average American should be subsidizing their electricity upgrades and costs. I am eager to keep advancing bipartisan, real solutions to invest in our U.S. power grid, which is reaching the end of its useful life, which is also raising costs on Americans. We have just got to remain clear-eyed that right now our neighbors are suffering an affordability squeeze. They deserve so much better than what they are getting right now. This Ratepayer Protection Act is a good first start, but it is a modest first start. It is about fairness on this one. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill.”

“This bill is okay. I support it. I want everyone to vote yes on this bill.”

“I support this bill because it is a good first step. I ask my colleagues to vote for it.”

“Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. I do believe that this legislation is a first step, and therefore, I support it and would ask my colleagues to vote for it. I yield back the balance of my time.”