Ratepayer Protection Act

The Ratepayer Protection Act deals with high electricity costs tied to data centers. According to the debate’s one sampled statement, the bill would ask states to examine these costs without requiring any action. Senator Van Hollen opposed the bill, saying it lacks enforcement mechanisms to lower electric bills, and asked the Senate to instead consider his own plan, which he said would hold data centers accountable and protect families and the environment.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

1 statement

Chris Van Hollen, MD

Democrat
“I am voting against this bill. It will not actually lower electric bills, because it only asks states to look at the high energy costs caused by data centers without requiring them to do anything. I want the Senate to vote on my plan instead. My plan holds data centers accountable, protects families from higher bills, and protects the environment.”
  • Speech on a bill

    Reasoning 100 of 100

    This statement drew 5 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

    See full analysis
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I cannot vote for a bill that promises protection but lacks the enforcement mechanisms needed to deliver on lowering Americans’ electric bills. To add insult to injury, Republicans pushed for a vote on this without even taking the opportunity to consider real solutions, like my Power for the People Act. The Ratepayer Protection Act relies solely on a process that would ask States to consider implementing data center-specific rate classes, without any guarantee that these rate classes would be implemented and without any of the additional measures needed to ensure that consumers are protected from rising electric bills caused by skyrocketing energy demand from data centers. Americans are facing an affordability crisis from the grocery store to the gas pump, and they deserve real solutions, which is why I filed my bill, the Power for the People Act, as an amendment to this bill. The Power for the People Act includes meaningful reforms that would actually hold data centers accountable for driving up energy prices, something that the Ratepayer Protection Act purports to do but cannot achieve on its own. Unfortunately, Republicans have provided no guarantees that we would consider amendments to the Ratepayer Protection Act. This body has repeatedly failed to address the real concerns of Americans struggling to make ends meet, with Republicans prioritizing tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations and Trump’s golden age for billionaires. Now the majority is claiming to address a real problem with the bill before us, with a solution that falls far short. The energy demand of data centers is unlike anything we have dealt with in recent history and our solutions need to meet the moment. My Power for the People Act protects consumers, creates good-paying jobs, and mitigates harm to the environment, but we have no assurance that it could be considered. Without the opportunity to provide amendments, the bill before us today is an empty gesture, leaving Americans shouldering Big Tech’s costs with no relief.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from issue 155

  1. Senate Unanimous Consent Request--H.r. 4238 3 statements
  2. Senate Unanimous Consent Request--S. 5438 3 statements
  3. Senate Ratepayer Protection Act 1 statement
  4. Senate Unanimous Consent Request--S. 5435 (Executive Session) 3 statements
  5. Senate National Park System Long-Term Lease Investment Act 13 statements
  6. Senate Taxpayer Assistance and Service Act 43 statements
  7. Senate House Bills 2 statements
  8. Senate License to Drill Act 3 statements
  9. Senate Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act of 2026 2 statements
  10. Senate Executive Calendar 2 statements
  11. Senate Mystic Alerts Act 2 statements
  12. Senate End Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act 13 statements
  13. Senate Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions 3 statements
  14. Senate Privileges of the Floor 2 statements