Martin Heinrich, NM
“I oppose this bill because it is too weak. AI data centers are using huge amounts of power and driving up electric bills for families. This bill only asks states to consider making tech companies pay for electric grid upgrades. We must require them to pay, and my bill does that.”
“Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the Senator from Ohio and I agree on one thing: AI data centers can mean higher costs for American families, and in a lot of places, they already do. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas found that data center demand has already pushed electricity prices across the Nation up by 2 to 6 percent--a number that they expect to increase to 20 to 30 percent by 2028. In the Mid-Atlantic region, that means an extra $840 per year, per family, for the next 2 years--840 bucks. We expect to see increases like this across the country as more AI data centers come online, but the Ratepayer Protection Act falls short of what we need to do to respond. When I open my mail and unfold my electricity bill and read how much I owe for the month, it doesn’t say that I may pay that amount. It doesn’t say that I should pay that amount. It is not optional. Just like every other bill-paying American family out there, I open that bill, and I have to pay it. The same needs to be true for AI data centers. If hyperscalers and other Big Tech developers need expensive new facilities and more energy, they should pay for it, not our hard-working families and small businesses. I think the Senator from Ohio and I agree on that principle, and plenty of Big Tech companies have said that that is their plan. But I don’t think it is enough to just take their word for it. It is not enough for us to tell States to consider making data centers pay for grid updates. Rather than voluntary pledges or suggestions to States, Congress needs to pass real legislation with real teeth. That is why I introduced the GRID Savings Act--not a voluntary agreement--to require large load customers like data centers to pay for the facilities needed to connect them to the grid--not to consider it, not to make pledges, but to actually do it; to pay for the upgrades they need. That way, we can ensure reliable, low-cost energy to power everyday lives. My bill is what is needed to start to bring down energy prices. We also need to do more to get data centers to actually engage with communities from the beginning to the very end. We need to conserve local resources, especially water. And we need to protect communities from air pollution by using clean energy and battery storage. But we are not going to get there with the bill that the Senator from Ohio has proposed. Therefore, I object.”
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the Senator from Ohio and I agree on one thing: AI data centers can mean higher costs for American families, and in a lot of places, they already do. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas found that data center demand has already pushed electricity prices across the Nation up by 2 to 6 percent--a number that they expect to increase to 20 to 30 percent by 2028. In the Mid-Atlantic region, that means an extra $840 per year, per family, for the next 2 years--840 bucks. We expect to see increases like this across the country as more AI data centers come online, but the Ratepayer Protection Act falls short of what we need to do to respond. When I open my mail and unfold my electricity bill and read how much I owe for the month, it doesn’t say that I may pay that amount. It doesn’t say that I should pay that amount. It is not optional. Just like every other bill-paying American family out there, I open that bill, and I have to pay it. The same needs to be true for AI data centers. If hyperscalers and other Big Tech developers need expensive new facilities and more energy, they should pay for it, not our hard-working families and small businesses. I think the Senator from Ohio and I agree on that principle, and plenty of Big Tech companies have said that that is their plan. But I don’t think it is enough to just take their word for it. It is not enough for us to tell States to consider making data centers pay for grid updates. Rather than voluntary pledges or suggestions to States, Congress needs to pass real legislation with real teeth. That is why I introduced the GRID Savings Act--not a voluntary agreement--to require large load customers like data centers to pay for the facilities needed to connect them to the grid--not to consider it, not to make pledges, but to actually do it; to pay for the upgrades they need. That way, we can ensure reliable, low-cost energy to power everyday lives. My bill is what is needed to start to bring down energy prices. We also need to do more to get data centers to actually engage with communities from the beginning to the very end. We need to conserve local resources, especially water. And we need to protect communities from air pollution by using clean energy and battery storage. But we are not going to get there with the bill that the Senator from Ohio has proposed. Therefore, I object.