Baratta says the bill mandates consideration without actual safeguards
James BarattaWriting fellow at The American Prospect
James Baratta argues that the bill requires states to consider protections without mandating safeguards for data-center energy costs.
“it only requires states to consider ratepayer protection, without mandating any actual safeguards around paying for data center energy use.”
Analysis
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
Analysis
About this source
Baratta argues that Senate Democrats had reason to reject a bill that requires consideration of standards rather than binding safeguards.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
Writing after the bill failed a Senate vote, Baratta says that, given what the bill does, Senate Democrats appear to have made a logical calculation in killing it.
After the quotation
He says the bill is behind state action on data-center tariffs in Alabama and Ohio, and notes that some other congressional proposals have bipartisan support, such as a pair of bills from Sens. John Curtis and Lisa Blunt Rochester.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
Baratta criticizes the bill for requiring states only to consider ratepayer protection, without mandating safeguards.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseThune defends the ratepayer bill as consequential
“I don’t know how you can say something that passed the House of Representatives 417-3 isn’t consequential,”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
- Baratta says the bill mandates consideration without actual safeguards
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/6213-james-baratta-argues-that-the-bill-requires-states
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Baratta says the bill mandates consideration without actual safeguards". First published: 2026-10-20. Last updated: 2026-10-20. https://disputeindex.com/events/6213-james-baratta-argues-that-the-bill-requires-states