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.

America

Milei hardens Falklands stance with oil sanctions and defence push

Published

on

Argentine President Javier Milei has said he will tighten sanctions on companies involved in oil projects around the Falkland/Malvinas Islands.

Milei also said he would increase defence resources in the south of the country and submit a bill to Congress aimed at strengthening Argentina’s response to what he described as violations of sovereignty.

In a televised address, Milei said he would sign a decree to accelerate sanctions under Argentine law against companies participating in oil and gas extraction activities in the territory, which Argentina considers its own but which remains under British control.

Speaking in an address to the nation early on Friday morning, Milei said the United Kingdom was facing a migration and economic crisis, adding that this meant Argentina would prevail in its claim over the Falkland Islands:

“If we look at the structural crisis in the United Kingdom, it is clear that the country is facing multiple crises on many fronts, including migration, demographics, and a difficult economic situation. It is clear that Argentina’s future is extremely promising and that Argentina will prevail.”

Milei said Argentina would intensify efforts to sanction not only the companies involved, but also their shareholders, executives, and suppliers.

“We will continue to prevent companies that are directly or indirectly involved in projects (on the islands) without Argentina’s permission from operating on Argentine territory,” the Argentine leader said.

He also stated that the government would issue an emergency decree to expand defence resources, under which a naval base would be built in the nearby province of Tierra del Fuego and telecommunications capabilities would be strengthened.

Milei added that he would submit an urgent “national defence of sovereignty” bill to Congress in order to stiffen penalties for unauthorised activities around the islands, extend sanctions to suppliers, and broaden the legal framework to cover other activities affecting Argentina’s natural resources.

Milei noted that Argentina had determined that the Sea Lion offshore project, operated by Navitas Petroleum and Rockhopper Exploration, could begin oil exploration work in the coming months, presenting an imminent threat to Argentine interests.

The remarks mark a harder line from Milei, who had previously called for the Falkland Islands dispute to be resolved through diplomacy even while seeking warmer ties with Britain.

A British overseas territory located roughly 500 km east of the Argentine mainland, the Falkland Islands have long been claimed by Argentina.

Britain has controlled the islands since 1833, and the two countries fought a brief war over them in 1982.

London maintains that residents of the Falkland Islands voted on their political status and right to self-determination in a referendum held in March 2013. An overwhelming majority of 99.8% voted to remain an overseas territory of the United Kingdom.

In his speech, Milei stated that residents of the Falkland Islands do not possess the right to self-determination and called on the country to unite around its claim to the islands.

Arguing that the global wind is currently “blowing in favour of Argentina’s demands”, Milei said: “A short time ago, President [Donald] Trump announced that the US is reconsidering its historic stance on the Malvinas islands.”

The British conservative newspaper The Telegraph wrote that the move would appease the US president, who intervened in the dispute and implied he would not assist the United Kingdom in fighting off an invasion of the Falkland Islands.

Asked whether the US would “come to the aid” of Britain, Trump referred to his confrontation with Iran, saying: “Your country was not there to help me.”

Trump then questioned whether Britain would have the capacity to defend the islands, telling GB News:

“Look, I was there when the first war broke out. That was a very long time ago, and I watched it very closely. You handled yourselves very well. You took the islands back quite decisively, but it is very far away.”

Speculation is mounting that Buenos Aires and Washington are discussing an agreement granting the US access to oil extracted off the Malvinas.

On the eve of Milei’s speech, Argentine Minister of Energy and Mining Daniel Gonzalez Casartelli was in Washington to discuss energy investments with American oil companies and members of the Trump administration.

Meanwhile, Benjamin Netanyahu’s son Yair clashed with the British right by demanding that the Falkland Islands be placed under Argentine sovereignty.

According to Bloomberg, Argentina is currently in the midst of an oil boom. Drilling activity is accelerating in the Vaca Muerta shale formation in Patagonia, which already produces more than 1 million barrels of oil and gas per day.

The country also has some offshore production operations, and exploration activities have been carried out in South Atlantic waters in recent years.

Meanwhile, Milei met Sarah Rogers, a senior US State Department official, at a conservative political forum held in Chile.

Reiterating Argentina’s claim to the islands, Milei said: “We must take back these islands, which are negligible in national terms. There is no other way forward. This is the best way to pay tribute to those who sacrificed their lives for this cause.”

Continue Reading

America

US House passes bill to strip federal aid over Israel boycotts

Published

on

The US House of Representatives has passed a controversial bill to strip federal financial aid from colleges and universities that participate in boycotts against Israel.

The Republican-led measure targets calls for accountability directed at the Tel Aviv government over its military campaign in the Gaza Strip, as well as expressions of solidarity with Palestine on university campuses.

Entitled the “Protecting Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2026”, the legislation was approved on Thursday in a 237–169 vote.

Only two Republican lawmakers voted against the measure, while 33 Democrats broke party lines to vote in favour. The bill will now proceed to the Senate.

Designated as H.R. 4795, the proposal bars colleges and universities that benefit from federal student aid programmes from engaging in commercial boycotts against Israel.

Institutions receiving Title VI funding for international studies and foreign language programmes are also required to certify that they do not prevent students or faculty from participating in academic programmes in the occupied territories, nor restrict Israeli students and academics from accessing their campuses.

The bill was co-sponsored by Representative Virginia Foxx, a North Carolina Republican, and Representative Josh Gottheimer, a New Jersey Democrat.

Representative Tim Walberg, chairman of the House Education Committee, argued that taxpayer money should under no circumstances flow to institutions that “discriminate against Israel”.

Gottheimer, a staunch supporter of the Israeli government, stated that the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement is a campaign “targeting a single country and a single religion”.

Opponents of the bill emphasised that the measure seeks to solve a non-existent problem and constitutes an attack on constitutionally protected free speech.

The ranking Democrat on the committee, Representative Bobby Scott, pointed out that not a single US college or university has actually joined the global BDS movement. Scott recalled that while student and faculty bodies have announced support for BDS, university administrations have refused to implement those demands.

During the floor debate, Scott said: “We must fight antisemitism wherever it appears, but we should not do so by penalising protected free speech or conflating a student’s view with university policy.”

Representative Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat who opposes the BDS movement, also voted against the bill. Nadler noted that the only way to protect opinions one agrees with is to defend the right to express opinions one does not agree with.

The liberal Jewish organisation J Street was also among the actors opposing the bill. The group warned that the measure conflates boycotts of the Israeli government with those directed at companies linked to illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.

J Street stated that the bill places Israel in an exceptional position, does nothing to protect Jewish students, and risks inflaming antisemitism rather than countering it. By contrast, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) openly backed the legislation.

The vote follows nearly three years of sustained protests by students and faculty against Israel’s war in Gaza.

According to data from the Ministry of Health in Gaza, attacks carried out following the 7 October 2023 operation and the subsequent military campaign launched by Israel have killed more than 73,000 Palestinians, while flattening the vast majority of the region’s universities, schools, and civilian infrastructure.

Encampments erected on university campuses demanded an end to the carnage and called on universities to divest financial holdings from companies profiting from the occupation and the war.

The Washington administration and its allies frequently characterised these protests as antisemitic. The Trump administration, meanwhile, targeted universities with various investigations and threats to freeze federal funds.

Aiming to protect their congressional majority in the November midterm elections and during the final two years of Trump’s term, House Republicans are keeping the issue on the agenda to deepen divisions among Democrats, who have grown increasingly critical of Israel as mass casualties in Gaza mount.

In July, amid accusations that the campaign in Gaza had reached genocidal proportions, more than 100 House Democrats supported an initiative to cut certain military aid to Israel, a US ally.

Critics argue that the latest bill is an extension of anti-BDS legislation previously enacted across more than 30 US states, which compels public contractors and public institutions to pledge not to boycott Israel.

Free speech advocates have long maintained that these state laws conflict with the First Amendment of the Constitution.

The measure passed by the House of Representatives aims to expand this pressure to the entire federal student financial aid system.

Although no US university has formally adopted a BDS decision, the bill makes even limited commercial or academic distancing from the Israeli government—including entities operating in the occupied Palestinian territories—grounds for terminating federal funding.

Continue Reading

America

Pentagon office takes 35% stake in Venezuela oil venture

Published

on

The Trump administration’s oil agreement with Venezuela represents the riskiest venture to date for a Pentagon unit originally established for an entirely different purpose.

The White House announced this week that the Office of Strategic Capital (OSC), an entity operating under the Department of Defence, will acquire a 35% stake “at no cost to American taxpayers” in North American Blue Energy Partners, a firm headed by politically connected Venezuelan investor Alejandro Betancourt.

The objective is to make Venezuelan oilfields more attractive to US investors, thereby increasing revenue for Caracas whilst simultaneously squeezing out Chinese and Russian firms.

According to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the OSC has already facilitated equity acquisitions in at least five other companies during President Donald Trump’s second term. The OSC was created to provide loans for the development of critical technologies.

However, because the Venezuelan agreement involves petroleum rather than conventional critical technology, it stretches the agency’s statutory boundaries even further and has already prompted Democrats to pledge congressional investigations.

Should Democrats regain power in Washington this November, any oversight drive could place the office’s efforts to secure state equity positions in private corporations under intense scrutiny.

In an interview with Semafor, a former OSC official stated:

“Acquiring equity was never intended when the OSC was founded; that circumstance alone does not necessarily constitute a problem. Nevertheless, it raises some legitimate legal and ethical questions.”

Jon Hillman, who directs the council’s tracking system, noted in an interview that the Venezuelan oil deal “appears to be uncharted territory”, adding that the office’s “mission is to catalyze private investment into specific, critical supply chain technologies necessary for national security.”

The statute that established the OSC defines its authority to provide “capital support” as extending and guaranteeing loans and offering technical assistance.

A Pentagon spokesperson initially told Reuters that the office was “not acquiring equity” in private enterprises due to this constrained remit.

On Tuesday, however, a US official offered a contrasting account to journalists, stating that the authority to acquire a stake in Betancourt’s company via “penny warrants” was “granted to the OSC when it was enacted into law under the Biden administration.”

A “penny warrant” is a financial contract that confers upon its holder the right to purchase corporate shares at a negligible, nominal price.

The US official added:

“This is an entirely standard arrangement in terms of the OSC’s capacity to maintain the financial position it holds under this agreement, and all financial positions granted to the OSC comply fully with the law.”

Peter Harrell, a visiting scholar at Georgetown University Law Center, said in an interview that it was “impossible to render a definitive legal opinion” because officials had “not advanced a precise legal theory.”

Harrell added that the Trump administration may be banking on no party possessing either the legal standing or the inclination to bring a lawsuit over the transaction.

That calculation encompasses oil corporations hoping to profit from the newly reopened Venezuelan petroleum sector.

Cari Stinebower, an attorney at the law firm Steptoe who advises petroleum firms seeking to conduct business in Venezuela, said: “I suspect everyone may be quietly perplexed. Yet I do not believe anyone will speak out, because virtually everyone wants to participate in the investment opportunities in Venezuela.”

Jack Reed, the senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, is among those already demanding further particulars regarding the agency’s statutory authority to conclude the agreement.

Certain Republicans are likewise keen to obtain additional information concerning the Venezuelan deal.

The Biden administration formed the OSC in 2022 to provide loans to businesses developing technologies deemed “vital” to national security.

Recent legislative initiatives aimed at formally expanding its authority to encompass equity investments have so far foundered.

Yet under the direction of Deputy Secretary of Defence Steve Feinberg, the administration pressed forward regardless, enlisting bankers to help deploy a lending authority that surged from $1 billion to $200 billion courtesy of recent party-line Republican tax legislation.

The current director of the OSC, David Lorch, previously served as a managing director at Cerberus Capital Management, the private equity firm founded by Feinberg.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey