The bipartisan permitting package now heading toward the Senate floor contains a provision that would write a data-center cost-allocation rule straight into federal utility law. Under the bill text, when a large data center load (as defined in the bill) drives new generation, transmission or distribution investment, none of the incremental cost could be recovered from other customers.

The bill is S. 5653, the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026. GovInfo's copy of the introduced text shows that Sen. Shelley Moore Capito introduced it on Sept. 30, 2026, with Sens. Mike Lee, Sheldon Whitehouse and Martin Heinrich, and that it was referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Deseret News described the framework as a 417-page package when the four senators released it that day.

Latitude Media reported on Oct. 23 that the Senate is nearing a vote targeted for Nov. 9. Two major environmental groups are withholding their endorsement, and the negotiators are considering technical changes through a managers amendment.

What the data center provision does

The bill would add a new Section 228 to the Federal Power Act, titled "Ratepayer Protection for Data Center and High-Density Computing Load." It works through four mechanisms.

Who is covered. The text defines a "covered load" as the load of one or more data centers or high-density computing facilities that equals or exceeds 20 megawatts. That threshold can be met at a single site or across multiple sites under common ownership. A project also qualifies if its load is reasonably expected to reach 20 MW at full buildout. Because of that full-buildout clause, a phased campus that starts below the threshold would still be covered if its planned final size crosses it.

No cost shifting. Subsection (b)(1) provides that no portion of the incremental cost of serving a covered load may be allocated to, or recovered from, any customer other than a covered load. This is the central rule, subject to the section's rules of construction on state and federal authority.

Early exits. Under subsection (b)(3), cost recovery continues if a covered load terminates its contract early. The provision addresses a familiar concern in utility proceedings: a large customer leaves before the facilities built for it are paid off, and the remaining costs fall on everyone else.

Collateral up front. Subsection (b)(4) requires utilities to obtain financial assurances from the covered load before constructing or upgrading generation, transmission or distribution facilities to serve it.

The text also leaves room for states to go further. Subsection (c) allows states to set rates for covered loads that recover more than the incremental cost and to credit the excess to other customers. In other words, the federal rule is a floor on what data centers must pay, not a ceiling.

Separately, Section 2107 of the bill directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to revise its 1994 transmission pricing policy statement and then issue a rulemaking on transmission rates for computational load customers. The text also says the new rules apply prospectively to a covered load that interconnects on or after enactment, and that arrangements already approved by FERC or a state remain in effect.

Mandatory, not voluntary

When the text was unveiled, Deseret News reported that the data center language is mandatory rather than voluntary. That distinction matters because much of the cost-allocation debate so far has run through individual utility tariffs, state commission proceedings and company pledges. Heinrich told the outlet that the provision "ascribes those costs to the developers, not to ratepayers in a given utility or geographic area."

For utilities and state regulators, the practical questions will be how "incremental cost" is measured in rate cases and how the financial-assurance requirement interacts with existing large-load tariffs. The introduced text read for this article sets out the obligations. It defines incremental cost as the cost that would be avoided had the specific covered load not been served, based on utility estimates and subject to approval by FERC or a state, as appropriate.

Why green groups are holding back

The ratepayer provision is one piece of a much larger package, and that larger package is where the opposition sits. Latitude Media reported that NRDC and the Sierra Club are withholding support. The groups point to the bill's "project certainty" provisions and to limits on the ability of states and courts to block projects, which they view as a gift to the oil and gas industry.

NRDC told Latitude it was encouraged by the transmission provisions but called other elements of the bill "deeply flawed." Latitude also reported that centrist groups, including Third Way and the Searchlight Institute, support the deal.

At the time of the text's release, Deseret News noted that language on wind and solar was still outstanding.

What it means for communities and developers

For residents in areas where large campuses are proposed, the provision speaks directly to a common question at public hearings: who pays for the substations, lines and generation a new data center requires? If enacted as introduced, the bill would answer that at the federal level for covered loads of 20 MW or more that interconnect after enactment. Those costs would be assigned to the covered load, and states would keep the option of charging more and returning the difference to other customers.

For developers and their utility partners, the text points toward up-front financial commitments before construction starts and continuing payment obligations even if a contract ends early. The 20 MW threshold and the multi-site aggregation rule would also bring smaller phased or distributed projects under the same requirements when their combined or planned load crosses the line.

None of this is law yet. The bill could still change before a vote. Latitude reported that the four negotiators are weighing technical changes through a managers amendment ahead of a final floor vote, and the sources reviewed for this article do not say whether those changes would touch the data center section.

What Happens Next

According to Latitude Media, the Senate is targeting a floor vote on the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act for Nov. 9, 2026. Before that vote, the four lead negotiators (Capito, Lee, Whitehouse and Heinrich) are considering technical changes through a managers amendment. The introduced bill remains referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, per the GovInfo text. DataCenterFeed will compare any managers amendment against the introduced Section 228 language once it is released.

Sources