Connect with us

America

US House panel unanimously passes bill to shield consumers from AI data center energy costs

Published

on

Amid growing pushback in the US Congress over the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence infrastructure, a bipartisan bill aimed at capping the impact of data centers on residential electricity bills is gaining momentum in the House of Representatives.

The Ratepayer Protection Act mandates that state utility regulators evaluate standards that would shift the burden of electricity costs from individual consumers onto technology companies.

The proposed legislation cleared the House Energy and Commerce Committee in a unanimous 52-0 vote—a result demonstrating that public and political resistance to data center construction has breached party lines.

Designed to codify commitments made by tech executives to the White House earlier this year, the text requires state regulatory bodies to hold formal proceedings on the issue.

The measure mandates the consideration of a standard under which large data centers would be required to absorb the expenses of new power generation or transmission capacity necessitated by their electricity consumption; however, it stops short of compelling states to ultimately adopt those standards.

In a statement following the vote, Representative Brett Guthrie, the Republican chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said: “When evaluating the industry as a whole, it has become clear that there is only one body capable of standing alongside the families and communities who pay electricity bills—and that is this committee, along with our colleagues in Congress.”

The legislation has also found traction in the upper chamber. Republican Senator Jon Husted introduced a companion measure in the Senate last week. A spokesperson for Husted noted that the senator was pleased with the House committee’s approval and its bipartisan support, adding that he would continue working to pass the bill through the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee toward final enactment.

Despite its accelerating legislative pace, whether the measure will ultimately become law remains uncertain.

Matt VanHyfte, a spokesperson for the Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, noted in an emailed statement that he remains confident the bill will continue its advance following its successful committee passage.

Clara Summers, director of the Consumers for a Better Grid campaign at the Citizens Utility Board, observed that while the bill does not impose direct mandatory standards on states, directive language from Congress serves a useful purpose.

“There are states that have not addressed this issue proactively. Therefore, a signal from Congress stating, ‘You must at least place this topic on your agenda within a specified timeframe,’ represents a constructive incentive,” Summers said.

Summers emphasized that the standards submitted for state evaluation under the bill would hold data centers accountable for generation, transmission, distribution, and other associated costs, though the final determination on whether to act rests entirely with state authorities.

While supporting the measure, several Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee characterized the legislation as merely an initial step rather than a comprehensive solution.

Democratic Representative Nannette Barragán noted that while the bill recognizes a critical principle, it falls short of what is required. “We must do more to protect families from soaring electricity costs while simultaneously addressing the attendant health and environmental impacts,” Barragán said.

Data centers—the backbone of artificial intelligence development—are encountering intensifying grassroots resistance as technology firms push to construct new server warehouses and expand their computing power.

Local communities are challenging projects over rising electricity rates, high water consumption, and potential environmental pollution. Certain analysts also link this opposition to broader public anxieties regarding AI, including job displacement.

Public enthusiasm for data center developments, which until last year were widely viewed by both Democrats and Republicans as prime economic investments, is visibly eroding.

According to a survey published by Politico, 41% of Americans now oppose the construction of a data center in their local area, compared to 24% who support it. In January, opposition stood at 28%, with support at 36%.

Democratic Representative Kathy Castor, a co-sponsor of the bill, argued that the legislative package before the committee does not go far enough to resolve the underlying crisis.

Pointing to the Republican majority in the House, Castor said: “I believe the majority must take more decisive action right now to lower household electricity bills. Bipartisan bills are a good first step, but they fall short in this period of energy inflation.”

Castor expressed regret that her own proposal, which would require federal regulators to accelerate the grid interconnection process for new power sources, was not brought up for consideration by the committee.

Nevertheless, Castor commended the bill for sending a clear message to developers: “If a company wants to build a data center, it must pay for the power and grid upgrades it requires.”

Camden Weber, a senior climate and energy policy specialist at the Center for Biological Diversity, told The Hill that congressional focus on affordability was welcome, though incomplete. “It is positive that Congress is addressing pricing issues. We are experiencing an affordability crisis; people are struggling to pay their bills, particularly energy bills. However, concerns surrounding data centers extend well beyond this. There are environmental issues, water scarcity, and air pollution. While this bill appears well-intentioned, it does not go far enough,” Weber said.

Weber further criticized the legislation for establishing an optional framework for states rather than a binding mandate.

Conversely, several lawmakers view this structural flexibility as a primary strength of the text.

Democratic Representative Troy Carter emphasized during the committee markup that the federal government should refrain from overreach. “The key point is that Washington is not dictating terms to Louisiana. This bill does not force state regulatory commissions to adopt a specific rate structure. It establishes a federal standard for state public utility commissions to evaluate, leaving the ultimate implementation strategy to their discretion,” Carter said.

Carter added that local regulators are best positioned to assess the specific requirements of their own jurisdictions.

Responding via email regarding the policy impact of the legislation, Republican committee spokesperson Ben Mullany stated that lawmakers are working in tandem with states and utility providers to ensure grid efficiency.

“The Ratepayer Protection Act sends a strong signal from Congress to the states. States need to examine these massive computing loads and work to ensure that residential customers do not bear the financial burden of generating and transmitting the power required for these data centers,” Mullany said.

The proposed legislation has drawn resistance from the technology sector. The Data Center Coalition, an industry group backed by major tech firms, voiced strong opposition to recent modifications that narrowed the scope of the bill exclusively to data centers.

Josh Levi, president and chief executive officer of the Data Center Coalition, stated that while the organization initially supported the original version and intent of the legislation, the latest revisions were counterproductive.

“The amendments introduced by the Energy and Commerce Committee narrow the scope of the bill to target the data center industry exclusively. This leaves consumers unprotected against the costs associated with substantial load additions driven by other expanding sectors across the United States,” Levi said.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

America

US economic growth outpaces G7 peers amid artificial intelligence boom

Published

2 days ago

on

24/09/2026

By

The US economy is projected to grow much faster than all other major advanced economies this year, as its domestic policies trigger difficulties across much of the globe.

According to Axios, the global economy has proved surprisingly resilient in the face of successive shocks.

The US stands out within this broader picture. A boom in artificial intelligence investment is helping the country expand far more rapidly than peer economies.

Yet this exceptional performance carries a price: more persistent inflation and interest rates that may need to stay at elevated levels for longer to rein it in.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) projects that the US economy will expand by 2.2% this year.

That rate is roughly double the pace forecast for the eurozone, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Growth is expected to be even weaker in Japan (0.8%) and Canada (0.9%).

This growth gap is expected to persist next year. In 2027, US growth is projected to reach 2.1%, while growth across most other major advanced economies in the rest of the world is forecast to hover around 1%.

The OECD has grown more optimistic regarding the US since June, raising its growth forecast by 0.2 percentage points for 2026 and by 0.3 percentage points for 2027.

This trend contrasts with downward revisions to next year’s growth projections for the global economy overall, the eurozone, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Japan.

OECD Chief Economist Stefano Scarpetta told reporters this morning:

“The biggest risk remains the course of the conflict in the Middle East and its impact on the energy market. But there are a number of other risks, some of which appear to have become somewhat more pronounced compared to the June forecasts.”

Scarpetta highlighted rising government bond yields, the risks accompanying the AI investment boom, and the likelihood of extreme weather pushing up food prices.

According to the OECD, the boom in artificial intelligence (AI) has provided the US economy with a powerful shock absorber absent in most other economies.

Rapid growth in AI investment and manufacturing “partially offset” the economic blow dealt by the conflict in the Middle East.

Data centre and technology spending directly bolstered US growth.

The inflation outlook, meanwhile, is proving more stubborn than it appeared several months ago.

The OECD expects headline inflation in the US to fall from 3.6% this year to 2.6% next year.

However, this forecast for 2027 is half a percentage point higher than the figure projected in June.

Core inflation in the US is projected to stand at 3.3% this year, among the highest rates across leading advanced economies, before easing to 2.5% next year.

This stubborn path explains why the OECD expects the Federal Reserve to deliver one more interest-rate increase this year and anticipates rates will remain in the 4% to 4.25% range through the end of 2027.

On the other hand, the AI boom accelerating US growth is beginning to bring its own macroeconomic headwinds.

According to the OECD, long-term borrowing costs in most of these major economies are at their highest levels in at least 15 years.

The organisation argues that heavy borrowing by AI firms has contributed to pushing yields higher, which could elevate costs across the broader economy and leave markets vulnerable if AI profits fail to meet expectations.

America has contributed to making the global economic climate more challenging.

Even though its own economy has so far performed better than nearly all other countries, this resilience comes accompanied by an inflation problem that remains difficult to eliminate.

Continue Reading

America

Republican support for Trump’s war with Iran drops sharply in polls

Published

4 days ago

on

23/09/2026

By

Republican backing from US President Donald Trump’s own party for the war he is waging against Iran is declining swiftly.

According to a CNN/SSRS poll published on 22 September, the proportion of Republicans who approve of Trump’s handling of the war dropped from 73% in March to 60% in September.

A majority of Republicans under the age of 45, as well as Republican voters outside the MAGA movement, no longer approve of Trump’s war policy.

Three-quarters of Americans believe that the Iran war is not worth its human and financial toll.

Regarding the war, which has been ongoing for roughly seven months, 78% of respondents stated that Trump is not making sufficient efforts to end the conflict. Approximately two out of every three people disagreed with the view that the US is winning the war.

Approval of Trump’s overall foreign policy stewardship remained at just 29%. This marked the lowest level recorded by CNN across Trump’s two presidential terms.

Share of those viewing Israel as an ‘enemy’ at record level

The proportion of respondents defining Israel as an enemy of the US rose to its highest point in CNN surveys conducted since 2000. This figure reached approximately double the level recorded in March 2025.

In a separate Reuters/Ipsos survey conducted among 1,277 adults, Trump’s overall approval rating slipped within a single week from 35% to 32%. This represented the lowest approval rating measured throughout Trump’s political career.

Discontent among Republican voters over the cost of living is also mounting. The proportion approving of Trump’s performance in this area stood at merely 17%.

While the cost of living remains the paramount issue for voters ahead of the 3 November midterm elections, the sharp surge in fuel prices since the onset of the war has exacerbated unease within the Republican base.

82% believe the war will be prolonged

Earlier this month, Trump said the war would conclude “right after” the elections. However, 82% of poll respondents believe the fighting will continue for a prolonged period.

Tehran, meanwhile, has shown no sign of backing down in the face of US military and economic pressure.

In a report published on 10 September, The Wall Street Journal revealed that US Vice-President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and other senior officials had warned Trump in private discussions.

Officials reportedly said that Iran could continue resisting Washington’s military and economic pressure and withstand this coercion even beyond January 2029, when Trump’s term in office concludes.

Continue Reading

America

Big Tech profits from AI extinction hype, Ken Klippenstein says

Published

2 weeks ago

on

15/09/2026

By

In the debate surrounding the dangers posed by artificial intelligence, almost everyone is attempting to market a product.

While the mainstream media portrays artificial intelligence as an imminent mass extinction event, US President Donald Trump frames the issue within the context of a new Cold War with China, arguing that the US cannot afford to slow down.

In his analysis, journalist Ken Klippenstein emphasizes that Silicon Valley elites profit directly from this intense attention.

A new generation of the tech class is occupying the public mind with various doomsday scenarios, ranging from bioterrorism to machines taking over the world.

While this dynamic transforms artificial intelligence into a “national security” issue, it elevates the technology to the level of nuclear weapons and removes it from public oversight.

Although not immune to the tendency to exaggerate threats, reports from US intelligence agencies paint a picture far removed from the hysterical tone in the media.

The US intelligence community assesses that artificial intelligence merely magnifies risks that already exist.

Sensational headlines run by legacy media are fueled by social media figures who spread claims of human extinction to millions of followers. In this way, fears themed around “existential risk” or “doomsday” take root in the public imagination.

On the other side of the coin are those who oppose disaster narratives while pursuing their own commercial interests.

Prominent figures in this camp include Yann LeCun, former chief AI scientist at Meta, and Andrew Ng, co-founder of Google Brain and head of AI Fund.

In October 2023, LeCun accused OpenAI chief Sam Altman, Google DeepMind chief Demis Hassabis, and Anthropic chief Dario Amodei of running a “massive lobbying effort” designed to tilt the regulatory landscape in their own favor.

LeCun warned that if these fear politics succeed, artificial intelligence will be monopolized by a small number of corporations.

Ng, for his part, described the claim that artificial intelligence would destroy humanity as “mind-bogglingly stupid”, arguing that large corporations are stoking extinction fears to avoid competing with open-source models.

Although these criticisms carry truth regarding corporate aims, the conflicting interests of both sides remain striking.

LeCun and Ng advocate open-source artificial intelligence models, whereas Anthropic and OpenAI favor proprietary models that keep their source code secret and lease access to users.

While major players producing proprietary models possess the capacity to comply with prospective federal licensing rules, open-source enterprises stand to be damaged by such statutory mandates. The common ground shared by doom-mongers and deregulation advocates is their lack of concern for the actual risks artificial intelligence generates.

The US intelligence community provides a more measured framework regarding tangible dangers.

In the Annual Threat Assessment, which catalogues China’s military strength, Russian influence operations, and drug cartels, the threats posed by artificial intelligence are summarized in just three items:

“It is essential to ensure that the use of machines and AI remains under human control.”

“These applications also carry risks that require careful human engineering to properly mitigate the risk of AI autonomy before they are widely deployed.”

“Emerging technologies such as AI and quantum computing are expected to have significant implications for national security.”

The official assessment by the 18 agencies comprising US intelligence on the perils of artificial intelligence remains limited to these statements. The reports contain no determinations concerning superintelligence, the annihilation of humanity, or an uprising of machines.

The US Department of Homeland Security Threat Assessment notes that artificial intelligence merely introduces fresh layers of complexity to existing threats. The department outlines five primary issues:

Disinformation, fabricated video or audio recordings (deepfakes), and election interference;

Cyber operations and financial crime;

The exploitation of this technology by violent extremists, alongside radicalization;

The proliferation of chemical and biological knowledge;

The circumvention of AI security controls and the poisoning of training data.

All of these risks were familiar prior to the emergence of artificial intelligence. AI-enabled disinformation permits legacy propaganda methods to be deployed with greater speed and intensity.

Cyber operations, financial crime, and elements of radicalization have likewise ranked as familiar subjects for many years.

Concerns regarding biological and chemical threats date back to the Bill Clinton administration, while the fifth item stems entirely from humans tampering with AI security controls.

The Global Catastrophic Risks Assessment report by the Pentagon-funded RAND Corporation think tank defines artificial intelligence as an “entropy source”.

The report states:

“AI can be thought of as adding entropy and chaos to thorny problems humans face. Chaos does not require the development of superintelligent or supercapable AI; it is possible with current and near-term AI capabilities.”

Another research study conducted within RAND identifies genetically engineered pathogens, geoengineering, and nuclear war as three plausible pathways to human extinction.

However, numerous physical and operational constraints prevent artificial intelligence from triggering these catastrophes.

In a follow-up report investigating whether large language models facilitate the planning of a mass biological attack, RAND Corp. researchers identified no statistically significant difference between plans formulated with AI assistance and those produced independently.

The US National Academy of Sciences similarly notes that the primary barrier to bioterrorism is not an absence of access to information.

The decisive bottleneck lies in DNA synthesis screening, hands-on laboratory skill, culturing, formulation, and aerosolization: procedures that all demand human intervention, carry high costs, and remain prone to failure.

Having no commercial product to release or corporate shares to protect, official analysts record with balanced language that artificial intelligence does nothing beyond compounding the scale and velocity of current problems.

Observing that all factions resort to exaggerated rhetoric to capture attention, Klippenstein points out that in the debate over whether a chatbot will transform into a god, the major actors turn a profit while foisting the cost onto the public.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey