Thune defends the ratepayer bill as consequential
John ThuneSenate majority leader
John Thune cites the bill's broad House support to reject claims that it lacks consequence.
“I don’t know how you can say something that passed the House of Representatives 417-3 isn’t consequential,”
Reporting
Where this statement fits
Would Jon Husted's Ratepayer Protection Act protect households from data-center costs?
Jon Husted and the bill's House sponsors say the Ratepayer Protection Act would stop households from paying for infrastructure needed by large data centers. Critics question whether requiring regulators to consider protective standards would deliver that result.
Source and context
Reporting
About this source
NBC published Thune's remarks on September 30; the report does not specify the day of his answer.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
NBC News reports that Thune rejected Democratic arguments that the bill was a political move to protect Husted's re-election bid, and noted that nearly every House Democrat voted for it.
After the quotation
He notes that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Hakeem Jeffries voted for the bill and says it could go to the president and become law.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
Thune defends the bill's significance and argues that it could become law.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseBaratta says the bill mandates consideration without actual safeguards
“it only requires states to consider ratepayer protection, without mandating any actual safeguards around paying for data center energy use.”Read statement
Husted says his bill makes data centers pay their fair share
“My bill ensures that large data centers pay their fair share of electricity costs, infrastructure costs that they require, requiring them to own the responsibility for those costs rather than shifting them to other ratepayers.”Read statement
Schumer calls the ratepayer bill voluntary and favors mandatory protections
“Because we don't vote for frauds. It's voluntary. Not a single company has to comply with it. If they wanted to do something real, if you still wanted to do something real instead of faking the people out, he would take one of the Democratic bills by Van Hollen and by Martin Heinrich and so many others that is real and has teeth. They want it optional, which means zero. We want it mandatory.”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Thune defends the ratepayer bill as consequential
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/6168-john-thune-cites-the-bill-s-broad-house
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Thune defends the ratepayer bill as consequential". First published: 2026-10-20. Last updated: 2026-10-20. https://disputeindex.com/events/6168-john-thune-cites-the-bill-s-broad-house