Working press resource. Facts verified against primary sources. Last verified July 10, 2026. On deadline: 850.973.7687
National ratepayer tracker, eleven states

Who pays for the grid capacity that data centers trigger

This is the deep reference: state-by-state stakeholder maps, money-flow diagrams, key facts, and the gaps, all with numbered citations. For story angles, quotes cleared for use, and verified stats on one page, start at the press desk.

Texas and Florida passed binding statutes. Nine other states are answering the same question through tariffs, rate cases, studies, investigations, and merger reviews. The organizing principle is simple. The load creator should pay for the load it creates. Everything else is mechanism.

Status verified against primary sources on July 10, 2026. Every checkable fact is numbered and cited in Sources and citations. Dockets move quickly; re-check before republishing.
FloridaBinding statute TexasBinding statute PennsylvaniaPUC tariff VirginiaRate class WisconsinRewritten tariff ArizonaRate case CaliforniaStudy law North CarolinaMerger review South CarolinaMerger review OregonRates in effect GeorgiaInvestigation

The core idea. A data center that triggers hundreds of millions of dollars in grid upgrades should carry that cost itself. When the cost lands on the residential rate class instead, that is cost externalization: a private profit paid for with a public bill. Every framework below is a different attempt to stop that shift.

"The question is not whether we build the grid for AI. It is who pays for it. A data center that triggers a billion dollars in upgrades should carry that cost, not hand it to a retiree three counties away who never asked for the load."
Dr. Mark McNees, Florida State University

Florida

Binding statute

The first state to put a binding statute behind the load-creator-pays principle. SB 484 became law on May 7, 2026 and takes effect July 1, 2026. The real test is the tariff filings that follow.

"Florida did something rare. It put a binding statute behind a simple rule: the load creator pays for the load. The law is written. The real test is whether the tariff filings this fall have teeth."
Dr. Mark McNees, Florida State University
Stakeholder map
Florida Legislature SB 484, unanimous Senate Florida PSC Approves the tariff filings FPL and other IOUs File compliant tariffs Large load customer 50 MW+. Pays full cost of service Residential ratepayers Protected from cost shift directs sets tariff rules bills shields

The statute names the PSC as the firewall. Utilities file, the Commission approves against the statute, and the large load customer carries its own cost of service.

How the money flows
1 GENERATION AND GRID Utility builds capacity Transmission, generation upgrades 2 COST ALLOCATION (SB 484) PSC tariff assigns cost to the load creator Minimum charges, contract terms, financial guarantees Data center pays Full cost of service Households Not charged for the trigger cost of the buildout protected

Key facts

  • Law: CS/CS/SB 484, Chapter 2026-65, effective July 1, 2026 except as otherwise provided.12
  • Threshold: Large load customers with anticipated monthly peak load of 50 MW or more.1
  • Mechanism: Utilities must file tariffs for PSC approval so large loads pay their own cost of service, and the risk of nonpayment may not be borne by the general body of ratepayers. Load splitting to dodge the threshold is barred.1
  • Filing deadline: Each public utility must file a tariff for PSC approval by October 1, 2026.1
Where the gaps are

The affiliate transfer price

SB 484 audits the price the utility charges the customer. It does not audit the price a regulated utility pays a generator owned by the same parent company. That transfer price sits between the two and no one reviews it directly.

Load durability is not addressed

The statute assigns cost at the point of connection. It does not require regulators to stress-test whether the projected demand is real and lasting before the buildout is approved. If demand shrinks, the stranded asset risk remains.

Sources: [1] [2]. Back to top

Texas

Law

Texas moved a year before Florida and asked a different first question: not who pays for the grid, but whether the load asking to connect is real. SB 6, signed June 20, 2025 and effective immediately, rebuilt how large loads interconnect in ERCOT, with financial commitments up front and a mandatory

curtailmentCutting electricity demand instead of adding supply. It is the fast, cheap tool a grid uses when demand outruns generation. Whether a large load can be curtailed, and who gets curtailed first, is one of the central fights in data center policy. Why curtailment matters more than price caps →
switch for grid emergencies.

"Texas answered a different question first. Before asking who pays, SB 6 asks whether the load is real. A six-figure study fee and full interconnection cost responsibility is how you clear phantom projects out of the queue."
Dr. Mark McNees, Florida State University
Stakeholder map
PUCT SB 6 rules, Project 58317 ERCOT Studies, curtailment authority Large loads, 75 MW+ Data centers, crypto, manufacturers Transmission providers Collect fees, security, CIAC ERCOT ratepayers 4CP cost allocation under review directs studies sets standards costs allocated

SB 6 gave the PUCT and ERCOT new authority over how loads of 75 MW or more connect: study fees, site control, financial security, disclosure of duplicate requests, and a remote-curtailment requirement for anything interconnecting after December 31, 2025.

Key facts

  • Law: SB 6 was signed June 20, 2025 and took effect immediately. Default threshold: 75 MW at a single site, adjustable by the PUCT. It requires site control, proof of financial commitment, disclosure of duplicate interconnection requests, and a transmission screening study fee of at least $100,000.10
  • Kill switch: Large loads interconnecting after December 31, 2025 must install equipment allowing remote disconnection during firm load-shed events. ERCOT can order curtailment or backup-generation deployment only after market options are exhausted.10
  • Draft rule: On March 12, 2026 the PUCT published draft rule 16 TAC 25.194: a non-refundable interconnection fee of $50,000 per MW of contracted demand, 100 percent of direct interconnection costs paid by the customer, and security for system upgrades. If a customer withdraws, 80 percent of remaining security goes to the transmission provider's rate base.11
  • The demand behind it: ERCOT is tracking more than three times as many large-load interconnection requests as in 2024, and nearly 69 percent of 189 GW in large-load requests come from data centers.12
  • Co-location review: Pairing a new large load with an existing grid-connected generator now requires an ERCOT study and PUCT approval, closing the path where a data center quietly removes a power plant from the shared grid.10
Where the gaps are

Interconnection is covered. Retail cost of service is not.

SB 6 polices how large loads connect and what they pay to connect. It is not a Florida-style retail cost-of-service statute; most of ERCOT is a deregulated retail market. Whether ongoing transmission costs land fairly depends on the 4CP allocation review the PUCT must finish by December 31, 2026.

Exemption engineering

Law firms are already publishing structures to preserve co-location exemptions through entity acquisitions, leases, and tolling agreements. The rule is only as strong as the review that polices the workarounds.

Sources: [10] [11] [12]. Back to top

Pennsylvania

Model tariff

Pennsylvania acted through its utility commission, not a signed statute. On April 30, 2026 the PUC voted 5-0 to adopt a model

large-load tariffA separate rate class for very large electricity customers, usually data centers. It sets what they pay, what infrastructure costs they cover, and what happens if they leave early. Eleven states now have one or are building one. How spreading a cost changes who pays →
. A legislative version passed the House and stalled in the Senate. PJM capacity costs sit on top of all of it.

"Pennsylvania shows the cost most people never see. The capacity charge is spread across sixty-seven million bills, and data center demand is driving it. A model tariff helps at the connection point, but the auction cost still lands on everyone."
Dr. Mark McNees, Florida State University
Stakeholder map
PJM Interconnection Capacity auction, FERC cap Pennsylvania PUC Model tariff, April 30 2026 PA House (HB 1834) Passed House, Senate stall Distribution utilities e.g. PPL, incorporate model Large load, 50 MW+ Pays interconnection upgrades Residential ratepayers Bills up 10-20% on capacity Consumer advocates PULP, intervene in filings cost pressure recommends bills capacity pass-through

Two forces stack in Pennsylvania. The PUC model tariff pushes interconnection cost onto large loads, while PJM capacity auction costs still flow through to every bill.

How the money flows
1 PJM CAPACITY AUCTION Capacity price hit the FERC cap $333.44 per MW-day, cleared short of need 2 STATE TARIFF LAYER PUC model tariff, interconnection Large load pays upgrades, deposits, collateral Everyone's bill rises Capacity cost is socialized across 67M PJM customers Large load pays Its own interconnection socialized assigned

Key facts

  • Regulatory action: The PA PUC adopted a model large-load tariff framework on April 30, 2026. Utility interconnection upgrade costs are recovered directly from the large-load customer. It is guidance that utilities incorporate into their own filings.4
  • Legislation: HB 1834, the Data Center Act (Rep. Matzie), passed the House and moved to the Senate. It directs the PUC to create data center regulations. Related bills include HB 2150, HB 2151, and SB 939.3
  • PJM pressure: PJM's December 2025 auction, for the 2027/2028 delivery year, cleared at the $333.44 per MW-day FERC cap. It was the first auction in which the entire RTO fell short of the reliability requirement, with nearly all of the load-forecast increase attributable to data centers.5
Where the gaps are

The model tariff is not binding

The PUC framework is a recommendation. Protection depends on each utility filing a tariff that follows the model, and on advocates intervening if a filing falls short. A binding statute would close that discretion.

Capacity cost is still socialized

The state tariff addresses interconnection upgrades. It does not touch the PJM capacity charge, which is spread across all 67 million customers in the region. The independent market monitor tied a majority of one auction's price jump to data center demand, yet the cost lands on every bill.

Sources: [3] [4] [5]. Back to top

Virginia

Rate class in place

Home to the world's largest data center market. The SCC created a dedicated large-load rate class in its November 2025 Dominion order, and the Legislature layered SB 253 on top. The pending NextEra merger reshapes the whole picture.

"Virginia built the rate class inside a rate case, not a new law. It moved real cost onto the largest users. But run the math past the contract term and a big share still falls back on households. A start, not a finish."
Dr. Mark McNees, Florida State University
Stakeholder map
Virginia SCC Created GS-5 rate class Dominion Energy Proposed the rate class VA General Assembly SB 253 (Lucas) Data centers, 25 MW+ 14-year contracts, 85/85/60 minimum demand charges Residential ratepayers Bill up ~$16/mo, partial shield SELC, PEC, advocates Argue cost split still unfair proposed SB 253 adds approved partial shield

The SCC built the mechanism inside a rate case rather than through new legislation. SB 253 then gave the SCC authority to shift more capacity and distribution cost onto data centers.

How the money flows
1 GRID INVESTMENT Dominion builds for demand 183% projected demand rise by 2040 2 GS-5 COST ALLOCATION Minimum demand charges lock in cost 85% transmission, 85% distribution, 60% generation Data center pays Even if it uses less Households Still carry residual share residual

Key facts

  • Rate class: The SCC created a new large-load rate class for data centers in its November 2025 Dominion biennial review order, with minimum demand charges of 85% for distribution and transmission and 60% for generation.6
  • Contract term and threshold: Reported as a 14-year contract for customers over 25 MW, effective January 2027. Confirm the exact term and threshold against the full order text before public use.6
  • Legislation: SB 253 (Lucas) would let the SCC shift more distribution and capacity cost onto large loads. Status and the projected residential impact should be confirmed against the current bill record before citing a specific dollar figure.
Where the gaps are

The residual still lands on households

Advocates calculated that after the 14-year contract term, a majority of the grid-upgrade cost can still fall on individual ratepayers. The rate class narrows the shift, it does not eliminate it.

The merger changes who owns the generator

If NextEra acquires Dominion, the same parent could own both the regulated Virginia utility and unregulated generation. That raises the affiliate transfer-price question the rate class was not designed to police.

In Henrico County, government and school electricity rates rose nearly 25 percent on July 1, 2026, adding about $5 million a year across county and school facilities. The same increase applies to roughly 170 member entities of the Virginia Energy Purchasing Governmental Association statewide. County and utility officials attribute it to fuel and grid costs, not data centers. The open question is allocation: the SCC has ordered Dominion to shift generation cost allocation toward large loads like data centers, and whether any part of this increase reflects that shift has not been addressed publicly. Wholesale power costs across the PJM region rose 62.7 percent in the first five months of 2026 against the same period in 2025, per PJM's independent market monitor.16

Sources: [6], [16]. Back to top

Wisconsin

Tariff approved

A commission-led outcome with unusually strong customer protections. On April 24, 2026 the PSC unanimously approved a rewritten "very large customer" tariff for We Energies, then the utility asked to reopen part of it in June.

"Wisconsin is the version other states should study. The commission did not rubber-stamp the utility's filing. It rewrote it, lowered the threshold, and made the very large customers pay the full cost of the plants built to serve them."
Dr. Mark McNees, Florida State University
Stakeholder map
Wisconsin PSC Rewrote and approved tariff We Energies (WEC) Filed, later moved to reopen Very large customers 100 MW+, 15-year minimum, pay 100% of their costs Microsoft, Vantage Named large loads Existing customers "Not a single cent" to subsidize Citizens Utility Board Backed credit protections rewrote filing full shield

The PSC did not simply approve the utility's filing. It removed a capacity-only option that would have left ordinary customers paying a quarter of new plant costs, and required full-cost recovery from the large loads.

How the money flows
1 BESPOKE GENERATION New plants built for the load $19.3B generation plan over 5 years 2 FULL-COST TARIFF VLC pays 100%, plus credit collateral Below A- credit rating means posted guarantees Data center pays Generation and fuel, full Existing customers Transmission risk remains transmission gap

Key facts

  • Order: The PSC approved a rewritten We Energies very large customer tariff on April 24, 2026 (Docket 6630-TE-113).7
  • Threshold lowered: The Commission dropped the eligibility floor from 500 MW to 100 MW and extended the minimum term to 15 years.7
  • Full cost: The PSC removed the capacity-only option and required very large customers to pay the full cost of the generation serving them.7
  • June development: We Energies moved to reopen the case on the credit-rating requirements. Confirm the current docket status before citing.
Where the gaps are

Transmission cost timing

Under federal law, utilities cannot bill data centers for transmission until they draw power. The PSC used a minimum billing demand charge as a stopgap, but existing customers can still front some upfront transmission cost during construction.

No statewide statute

This is a single-utility docket, not a law. Advocates note Wisconsin lacks statewide legislative guardrails, so the next utility's rate case starts the argument over again.

Sources: [7]. Back to top

Arizona

Rate case

Arizona is the live test of who pays, running in public right now. APS filed a rate case asking roughly 45 percent more from extra-large users like data centers in a new separate customer class, alongside about $20 a month more from households. Hearings opened May 18, 2026 to packed rooms and protest. A decision is expected before the end of 2026.

"Arizona is running the experiment in public. A 45 percent data center rate and a separate customer class in the same filing as a 20 dollar household increase. If the commission approves both, watch which one shows up on bills first."
Dr. Mark McNees, Florida State University
Stakeholder map
Corporation Commission Decides the rate case in 2026 APS $662M request, formula rates Data center class Proposed: roughly 45% higher rates Attorney General Intervened against the request Residential customers About $20 a month more proposed files rate case challenges approved costs flow

The commission decides three things at once: the revenue increase, the separate data center class, and a formula-rate mechanism that would let APS adjust rates annually without a full rate case. Consumer advocates oppose the formula rates as a risk shift to customers.

Key facts

  • The filing: APS's rate case (Docket E-01345A-25-0105) requests roughly $662 million, about 14 to 16 percent for households, and proposes a separate extra-large customer class with rates roughly 45 percent higher for users like data centers. Hearings began May 18, 2026.13
  • The opposition: Attorney General Kris Mayes intervened, arguing the increase could be cut to about 3 percent by reducing the return on equity, which her office calls a $524 million transfer from ratepayers to shareholders.13
  • Commission posture: The Corporation Commission held a large-load workshop on April 16, 2026 and reported consensus that the cost causer pays, with existing tariffs and energy supply agreements as the current tools and a universal large-load tariff under discussion.14
  • The demand: APS expects peak load to grow up to 40 percent by 2031 with data centers the primary driver; it serves 400 to 500 MW of data center load today and plans about 4,000 MW over the next decade.13, 14
  • Second utility: Tucson Electric Power is seeking its own 14 percent increase, about $172 million a year, targeted for September 2026, without a data center tariff at this time.15
Where the gaps are

Formula rates shift risk to customers

The same filing that separates data center costs also asks for annual formula-based adjustments in place of full rate cases. The state consumer office opposes it. If approved, cost review happens faster and with less scrutiny, in a state where demand forecasts are driven by loads that may not materialize.

No binding statute

Arizona has no SB 484 or SB 6. Protection runs utility by utility through tariffs and negotiated energy supply agreements. Shared infrastructure still blends into general rates, which is how a 45 percent data center rate and a $20 household increase arrive in the same filing.

Sources: [13] [14] [15]. Back to top

California

Study, tariff pending

California is the clearest case of the stranded-asset question. SB 57 is a study law, signed in 2025, that directs the CPUC to measure cost shifts and stranded-asset risk. Newer bills would turn that into an actual tariff.

"California is asking the harder question: what happens when a utility builds for demand that never shows up. If the projection is wrong, the stranded asset does not disappear. It goes on someone's bill. Measuring that risk is the first step to pricing it."
Dr. Mark McNees, Florida State University
Stakeholder map
CPUC Study due Jan 1, 2027 CA Legislature SB 57 (law), SB 886/887 PG&E, CAISO $2B+ upgrades for load Large-load customers Speculative interconnection requests inflate forecasts Residential ratepayers Exposed to stranded assets Public Advocates, TURN Push for binding safeguards speculative load study only stranded risk

California has named the problem but not yet built the binding mechanism. SB 57 measures the risk. SB 886 would create the tariff. The April 2026 CPUC rulemaking is where stranded-asset policy will actually be written.

How the money flows
1 SPECULATIVE DEMAND Developers file duplicate requests One site built, many applications submitted 2 CURRENT STATE: STUDY CPUC assesses cost shift, no tariff yet Stranded-asset accounting due Jan 2027 Utility builds ahead $2B+ CAISO upgrades for forecast load If load vanishes Ratepayers hold the asset unresolved

Key facts

  • Law: SB 57 (Padilla), chaptered October 11, 2025 (Chapter 647, Statutes of 2025). It authorizes the CPUC to assess data center cost shifts, including stranded-asset risk, with an assessment due on or before January 1, 2027.8
  • Pending: SB 886 and SB 887 (Padilla) would go further, with SB 886 directing a special transmission tariff for large loads. Confirm current status against the bill record before citing as enacted.
  • Rulemaking: The CPUC has an open rate-design proceeding expected to take up stranded cost and large-load cost shifts. Confirm the docket and dates before public use.
Where the gaps are

Study, not yet a rule

SB 57 measures the problem. It does not by itself assign the cost. Until the tariff bills pass or the CPUC rulemaking lands, the binding protection other states already have is not in place.

The stranded-asset question is the whole point

Speculative and duplicate interconnection requests inflate forecasts. If a utility builds against demand that never arrives, the cost of the idle asset falls on existing ratepayers. California is the state where this failure mode is most explicitly on the table.

Sources: [8]. Back to top

North Carolina

Merger review

North Carolina enters this map through the Dominion side of the proposed NextEra merger. The North Carolina Utilities Commission is one of three state regulators that must approve the deal, and it has recent experience conditioning a merger on customer savings.

"A merger review is a rare moment of leverage. Before you approve the largest utility in the country, the question to ask is simple: who pays when this company builds for data centers, and who is protected if that demand moves."
Dr. Mark McNees, Florida State University
Stakeholder map
NextEra + Dominion $67B proposed merger NC Utilities Commission Must approve the deal FERC, NRC, others Federal approval track NextEra generation arm Merchant + rate-based mix under one parent NC retail customers Share of $2.25B bill credits files for approval serves

The North Carolina question is not a data center tariff yet. It is whether the merger review conditions the deal to protect customers, as the NCUC did in the recent Duke subsidiary merger.

Key facts

  • Merger: NextEra announced an all-stock combination with Dominion on May 18, 2026. The combined company would be more than 80% regulated across four states.9
  • S-4 filing: NextEra filed its Form S-4 registration statement with the SEC on July 9, 2026, advancing the merger into formal regulatory review. SEC filing
  • NC role: The North Carolina Utilities Commission is one of three state regulators that must approve the deal, alongside FERC and the NRC.9
  • Bill credits: NextEra pledged customer bill credits for Dominion customers in Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Confirm the current dollar figure, since deal terms can change through review.9
  • Status: The transaction is pending, not closed, and drew a request from a U.S. senator that FERC reject it. Re-check the FERC and state dockets before citing current status.
Where the gaps are

Data center cost allocation is not the review's main event

The merger docket centers on market power and customer savings. The specific question of how future data center load is priced can slip past a merger proceeding unless intervenors raise it directly.

One parent, generation and utility together

A combined company that owns both regulated utilities and merchant generation concentrates the affiliate transfer-price question. A U.S. senator has already urged FERC to reject the deal on market-power grounds.

Sources: [9]. Back to top

South Carolina

Merger review

South Carolina is the third merger-review state, and the announced operational headquarters of the combined company. The Public Service Commission of South Carolina must approve the deal. NextEra has a history of merger attempts that state regulators rejected.

"South Carolina holds real leverage here and has not written a data center rule yet. The merger review is the opening. The condition worth attaching is the one every state keeps circling: the load creator pays for the load."
Dr. Mark McNees, Florida State University
Stakeholder map
NextEra + Dominion Operational HQ in Cayce, SC PSC of South Carolina Must approve the deal NextEra track record Prior SC bid rejected Combined generation 110 GW, more than 80% regulated SC retail customers Share of $2.25B bill credits files for approval history matters serves

South Carolina holds real leverage. The PSC can approve, condition, or reject. NextEra has failed prior acquisition attempts in South Carolina, Texas, and Hawaii when regulators were skeptical.

Key facts

  • Merger role: The Public Service Commission of South Carolina is one of three state approvers. The combined company would place its operational headquarters in South Carolina.9
  • Scale: The merged utility would be more than 80% regulated across Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.9
  • Bill credits: South Carolina customers are included in the pledged bill credits. Confirm the current figure before citing.9
  • Context: Coverage notes NextEra has faced skepticism on prior utility acquisitions. Verify any specific prior-deal claim before repeating it publicly.
Where the gaps are

No dedicated large-load tariff yet

South Carolina has not enacted a Florida-style statute or a Wisconsin-style tariff. Its current lever over data center cost allocation runs through the merger review and future rate cases, not a standing rule.

Concentration risk

The same combined parent would own generation and regulated utilities across the region. Whether the affiliate transfer price gets scrutiny depends on the conditions the PSC attaches at approval.

Sources: [9]. Back to top

Oregon

Rates in effect

Oregon is the first state to move from framework to dollars on the bill. Under the POWER Act, the Public Utility Commission created Schedule 96, a dedicated rate class for large loads. On July 7, 2026 the Commission approved Portland General Electric's implementing rates: about a 29 percent average increase for data center and other large-load customers, with residential rates falling slightly. The changes take effect July 8, 2026.

"Oregon is the first state where cost causation shows up as an actual number on the bill. Large load up about 29 percent, residential down. That is the whole principle made concrete: the users who trigger the buildout carry its cost, and the household three counties away does not."
Dr. Mark McNees, Florida State University
Stakeholder map
Oregon PUC Schedule 96, POWER Act Portland General Electric Files implementing rates Large load customer Data centers. About 29% increase Residential ratepayers Rates fall 1.3% sets rate class bills shields

The Commission sets the Schedule 96 rate class, PGE files the implementing rates, the large load carries the increase, and residential customers are shielded from the buildout cost.

Key facts

  • Framework: Schedule 96, a dedicated large-load rate class required under Oregon's POWER Act (House Bill 3546, 2025).17
  • Approval: The Oregon PUC approved PGE's implementing rates on July 7, 2026, effective July 8, 2026, across roughly 963,000 customers.17
  • Cost split: About a 29 percent average increase for large-load customers; residential rates down about 1.3 percent, commercial down about 2.1 percent, industrial down about 1.4 percent.17
Where the gaps are

Durability of the load

The rate class assigns cost at the point of service. The open question, here as elsewhere, is whether the projected large-load demand is durable enough to justify the capacity built against it, or whether a shrinking load leaves stranded costs behind.

Sources: [17]. Back to top

Georgia

Investigation open

Georgia is testing the same question through investigation rather than statute. On July 7, 2026 the Public Service Commission opened a formal proceeding into whether Georgia Power's large industrial customers, including data centers, are shifting costs onto residential ratepayers. Commission staff estimated the current structure could raise the average residential customer's cost by as much as 11 percent a month by 2028. The docket is set to conclude by the end of 2026.

"Georgia is asking the question in the open, on the record. A regulator estimating that the current structure could add 11 percent to a household's bill by 2028 is not advocacy. It is the cost shift, measured. The investigation is how you find out who is really carrying the load."
Dr. Mark McNees, Florida State University
Stakeholder map
Georgia PSC Cost-shift investigation Georgia Power Rate structure under review Large industrial load Data centers. Cost share in question Residential ratepayers Up to 11%/mo by 2028 (staff est.) investigates bills possible cost shift

The Commission is investigating whether Georgia Power's rate structure lets large industrial load shift cost onto residential customers. The dashed red line is the shift the docket is built to measure.

Key facts

  • Action: The Georgia PSC approved a formal investigation on July 7, 2026 into whether large industrial customers, including data centers, shift costs to residential ratepayers.18
  • Staff estimate: Commission staff estimated the current pricing structure could raise the average residential customer's cost by as much as 11 percent per month by 2028.18
  • Timeline: The investigative docket is set to conclude by the end of 2026.18
Where the gaps are

Investigation is not yet a remedy

Opening a docket surfaces the cost shift. It does not, by itself, reassign the cost. Whether the finding becomes a binding rate change is the open question, and the reason the end-of-2026 conclusion date matters.

Sources: [18]. Back to top

The gap every state shares

Read across all eleven states and one gap repeats. The tariffs and rate classes audit what the data center pays the utility. They do not audit what a regulated utility pays a generator owned by the same parent company.

The four price layers
1. Wholesale market (PJM, energy) Market-based, capacity cap approved by FERC 4. Retail rate (customer invoice) State PSC regulates. The tariffs audit this The transfer price Regulated utility pays its own affiliated generator FERC governs the market Layer 1 State PSC audits the bill Layer 4 the seam between state and federal review

FERC governs the wholesale market and maintains its own affiliate-transaction rules. The state commission audits the customer invoice. The open question is whether the state cost-of-service review under these new tariffs reaches the transfer price a regulated utility pays a generator owned by the same parent. The pending NextEra combination makes the question concrete: one parent could own both sides of that transaction across four states. This is the seam worth watching, not a settled claim that no one reviews the price.

Sources and citations

Every numbered source below was retrieved and read directly on July 3 and 4, 2026. Sources marked primary are the enacting body itself: the statute record, the commission order or release, or the company filing. One source is marked official secondary where it is the regulator's own news release summarizing an order whose full text should be read before quoting exact figures. Claims that could not be traced to a primary source on that date are not stated as fact on this page; they are marked in the panels as needing confirmation.
  1. The Florida Senate, Regulated Industries Committee. CS/CS/SB 484 Bill Summary (2026). States the October 1, 2026 utility tariff filing requirement, the July 1, 2026 effective date, the cost-of-service and nonpayment provisions, and the final votes. flsenate.gov/Committees/BillSummaries/2026/html/484Primary
  2. The Florida Senate. Senate Bill 484 (2026), Chapter No. 2026-65. Effective 7/1/2026 except as otherwise provided. Signed into law May 7, 2026; 5/8/2026 is the chapter-posting date, not the signing date. flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2026/484Primary
  3. Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PennFuture). Data Center 2026 Legislative Debrief. Identifies HB 1834 (the Data Center Act, Rep. Matzie), HB 2150, HB 2151, and SB 939 as Pennsylvania's data center bills. pennfuture.org/post/DATA-CENTER-2026-LEGISLATION-DEBRIEFPrimary
  4. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. Press release, April 30, 2026: PUC adopts a model large-load tariff framework; interconnection upgrade costs recovered directly from large-load customers. puc.pa.govPrimary
  5. PJM Interconnection (PJM Inside Lines). 2027/2028 Base Residual Auction results, December 17, 2025. Cleared at the FERC-approved cap of $333.44/MW-day; first auction in which the entire RTO fell short of the reliability requirement; nearly 5,100 MW of the 5,250 MW load-forecast increase attributable to data center demand. insidelines.pjm.comPrimary
  6. Virginia State Corporation Commission. News release on the final order in the Dominion Energy Virginia 2025 biennial review, November 2025. New large-load rate class with minimum demand charges of 85% (distribution and transmission) and 60% (generation). scc.virginia.govOfficial secondary
  7. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin. Press release, April 24, 2026, Docket 6630-TE-113. Approved a rewritten We Energies very large customer tariff; lowered the eligibility threshold from 500 MW to 100 MW; extended the minimum term to 15 years; removed the capacity-only option in favor of full-cost recovery. psc.wi.govPrimary
  8. California Senate Bill 57 (Padilla), 2025-2026 session. Chaptered October 11, 2025 (Chapter 647, Statutes of 2025). Authorizes the CPUC to assess data center cost shifts, including stranded-asset risk; assessment due on or before January 1, 2027. calmatters.digitaldemocracy.orgPrimary
  9. NextEra Energy. Investor announcement of the NextEra-Dominion combination, May 18, 2026. All-stock transaction; combined company more than 80% regulated across four states; requires FERC, NRC, and the Virginia SCC, North Carolina Utilities Commission, and Public Service Commission of South Carolina approval. Deal terms are announcement-stage and the transaction is pending. newsroom.nexteraenergy.comPrimary
  10. Bracewell LLP. "Texas Senate Bill 6 Ushers in Major Overhaul of Large Load Interconnection and Grid Access Rules." Signed June 20, 2025, effective immediately; 75 MW default threshold; study fees, financial commitments, remote-curtailment requirement for loads interconnecting after December 31, 2025; ERCOT and PUCT review of co-location arrangements. bracewell.comSecondary, law firm analysis
  11. Greenberg Traurig LLP. "Texas Senate Bill 6 Update: What Data Centers and Large Load Customers Should Know About Proposed Interconnection Standards." PUCT draft rule 16 TAC 25.194 published March 12, 2026: $50,000 per MW non-refundable interconnection fee, 100 percent contribution in aid of construction, security for upgrades, 80/20 split of drawn security on withdrawal. Draft rule; confirm final adoption before citing specifics. gtlaw.comSecondary, law firm analysis
  12. Public Utility Commission of Texas. SB 6 implementation presentation, October 17, 2025 (hosted by NASEO). ERCOT tracking more than three times as many large-load interconnections as 2024; nearly 69 percent of 189 GW of large-load requests are data centers. naseo.org, PUCT deckOfficial
  13. Arizona Capitol Times. "APS rate case kicks off with hours of protest over 14% rate increase," May 19, 2026. Docket E-01345A-25-0105; roughly $662 million request; separate extra-large customer class with rates about 45 percent higher for data centers; about $20 per month for households; formula-rate proposal opposed by the Residential Utility Consumer Office; Attorney General intervention. azcapitoltimes.comSecondary, news
  14. Arizona Corporation Commission. "ACC Data Center/Large Load Workshop Highlights," April 20, 2026. April 16 workshop; consensus that the cost causer bears its share; existing tariffs and energy supply agreements as current tools; universal large-load tariff under discussion. azcc.govPrimary
  15. Arizona Agenda. "A new formula for the power players," December 2025. Tucson Electric Power 14 percent request, about $172 million annually, targeted for September 2026; no data center tariff at this time pending its energy supply agreement. arizonaagenda.comSecondary, news
  16. Henrico County electricity rate increase and conservation request, June 2026. VEPGA statewide scope and school budget impact. PJM regional wholesale power costs up 62.7 percent in the first five months of 2026 against the same period in 2025, per PJM's independent market monitor. henricocitizen.com; 404media.co; inc.comSecondary, news
  17. Oregon Public Utility Commission, via KPTV (FOX 12 Oregon). "Regulators approve PGE's 29% rate increase for Oregon data centers," July 7, 2026. Schedule 96 implementing rates approved July 7, effective July 8, 2026; about 29% average increase for large-load/data center customers; residential about -1.3%, commercial about -2.1%, industrial about -1.4%; roughly 963,000 customers affected. Schedule 96 required under Oregon's POWER Act (HB 3546, 2025). kptv.com; Oregon PUC releaseOfficial secondary
  18. Georgia Recorder. "Georgia utility regulators greenlight probe into data center costs," July 7, 2026. The Georgia PSC approved an investigation into whether Georgia Power's heavy industrial customers, including data centers, shift costs to residential customers; staff estimated the pricing structure could raise average residential cost by up to 11% per month by 2028; investigation stems from a May settlement; docket to conclude by end of 2026. georgiarecorder.comSecondary, news

Back to top

Method

Every checkable fact on this page carries a numbered citation to a primary source that was retrieved and read on July 6, 2026. Where a figure appears in a regulator's summary but the underlying order should be read before it is quoted exactly, the panel says so directly rather than presenting the figure as settled. Where a claim could not be traced to a primary source on that date, it is marked as needing confirmation, not stated as fact. This page carries no speculation. Existing facts re-verified against current sources on July 10, 2026.

The framing is deliberately economic, not environmental. The question throughout is cost causation and cost allocation: who triggers the buildout, and who pays for it. Reporters and editors are welcome to use these maps with attribution, or to reach out for a source interview.

Contact: Dr. Mark R. McNees, Florida State University, mmcnees@fsu.edu, 850.973.7687.