What the standard would say
As introduced, the bill amends Section 111(d) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 — the statute federal energy policy uses to push ratemaking ideas to the states. It adds a paragraph (22) with three parts.
| Provision | What it does |
|---|---|
| Full incremental cost | Rates charged to a large-load customer must be designed to recover the full, incremental cost of any generation, transmission, or distribution upgrade needed to serve that load |
| Financial assurances | Before building the upgrade, the utility must require assurances or contributions from the customer covering its cost |
| Who is covered | A non-residential consumer with 100 MW or more of aggregate peak demand at one site or campus |
The clause worth reading twice is the tail of the first. Recovery applies even if the customer terminates the contract or stops buying power. That is the stranded-cost problem in statute: a substation gets built for a campus later cancelled, and the remaining customers inherit the bill.
"A rate charged, or entered into, by an electric utility for providing electric service to a large-load customer shall be designed to recover from the large-load customer the full, incremental cost of any generation, transmission, or distribution upgrade necessary to serve the load of such large-load customer, including in the event of such large-load customer terminating a contract or other agreement with the electric utility pertaining to the sale of electric energy, or otherwise ceasing the purchase of electric energy from the electric utility."／"Before making any generation, transmission, or distribution upgrade that is necessary to serve the load of a large-load customer, an electric utility shall require the large-load customer provide to the electric utility financial assurances or contributions to cover the cost of such upgrade."／"Mr. Evans of Colorado (for himself and Ms. Castor of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce" (June 18, 2026)— from the bill as introduced, on Congress.gov
"Consider" is carrying most of the weight
PURPA standards do not bind anybody on their own. They travel through Section 112, which tells state regulators to hold a proceeding and reach a determination. H.R. 9340 sets one year to open it and two to finish.
A determination is not an adoption. PURPA Section 111(a) says so directly: nothing in it prevents a state authority from determining that a standard is not appropriate to implement under its own state law. A commission can run the proceeding and decline. For utilities outside state ratemaking jurisdiction, the obligation falls on the utility itself.
A carve-out also lifts the obligation before it starts. Where a state has already implemented a comparable standard, held a proceeding on one, or where its legislature has voted on one, Sections 112(b) and (c) do not apply — and the text applies that test per electric utility within a state, not to the state as a whole.
"Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this paragraph, each State regulatory authority (with respect to each electric utility for which the State has ratemaking authority) and each nonregulated electric utility shall commence consideration under section 111, or set a hearing date for consideration, with respect to the standard established by paragraph (22) of section 111(d)."／"Subsections (b) and (c) shall not apply to the standard established by paragraph (22) of section 111(d) in the case of any electric utility in a State if, before the date of enactment of this subsection— (1) the State has implemented for the electric utility the standard (or a comparable standard); (2) the State regulatory authority for the State or the relevant nonregulated electric utility has conducted a proceeding to consider implementation of the standard (or a comparable standard) for the electric utility; or (3) the State legislature has voted on the implementation of the standard (or a comparable standard) for the electric utility."— from the bill as introduced, on Congress.gov
"Nothing in this subsection prohibits any State regulatory authority or nonregulated electric utility from making any determination that it is not appropriate to implement any such standard, pursuant to its authority under otherwise applicable State law."— from the United States Code on GPO
How the committee framed it
The unanimous vote is the headline, and the committee's summary is careful about scope: commissions would be required to consider a strategy, not to impose one. The vote summary records what the press release does not — the bill went to the full House as amended, which is why the operative text is no longer the one on Congress.gov. Two themes ran through the members' statements: households should not subsidize the buildout, and the buildout should not slow down, with the chairman tying the bill to the United States winning the race for AI dominance.
Subcommittee Chairman Latta noted that several states already run large-load tariffs, Ohio among them. That detail and the carve-out point the same direction — the bill is built to catch the states that have not acted, not to overwrite the ones that have.
"The legislation would require state public utility commissions to consider a strategy to make data centers pay their own way, instead of passing costs onto American consumers."／"applauded the Committee's passage of H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act, by a vote of 52-0."／"Numerous states already have large load tariffs in place for data centers, including Ohio. I urge the House to bring the Ratepayer Protection Act to the floor as soon as possible so we can get this commonsense legislation across the finish line." (Chairman Latta)／"Thank you to Congressman Gabe Evans for leading this vital legislation that will protect Americans from rising electricity costs while ensuring the United States is positioned to win the race for AI dominance." (Chairman Guthrie)— from the committee's press release
"H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act, was forwarded to the Full House, as amended, by a roll call vote of 52 yeas - 0 nays."— from the committee's vote summary
Bill text and committee releases bury the operative sentence screens down. Pulling them into markdown lets you diff statutory language against the summary that gets quoted.
What to watch next
The first thing to watch is narrower than the legislative calendar: publication of the amended text, since the coverage threshold is the clause most likely to have moved. After that, committee passage is not a floor vote and a floor vote is not enactment. Even then the decisions move to fifty state commissions, each with two years and the option to say no. For the parallel fight over how AI systems themselves get regulated, see the AI kill switch bill.
