America
US House panel unanimously passes bill to shield consumers from AI data center energy costs
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
Wealthy Americans drive surge in New Zealand golden visa demand
More than 700 wealthy foreign nationals have applied for New Zealand residency under the country’s “golden visa” programme over the past 14 months, compared with just 115 applications during the previous three years.
Applicants are required to invest at least NZ$5 million in local funds, companies or charitable organisations within three years.
A further 127 people have applied under a separate programme that requires an investment of NZ$10 million in passive assets such as bonds for five years.
The surge followed a relaxation of rules governing property purchases, investment requirements and the amount of time applicants must spend in the country to qualify.
According to the Financial Times (FT), the increase in applications for the right to live, work and study indefinitely in New Zealand has coincided with a period of geopolitical uncertainty that has made the country’s security and remote location increasingly attractive.
Dozens of countries around the world, from Portugal to the US, offer preferential immigration treatment in exchange for investment or, in some cases, cash payments.
Many have had mixed experiences with such schemes. Ireland, Malta and Australia have scrapped their programmes because of insufficient demand or concerns over abuse.
In New Zealand’s case, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon hopes the visas will attract more foreign investment and help reverse a “brain drain” that threatens the country’s economic growth.
Although tourists often fall in love with New Zealand and dream of moving there, many young New Zealanders leave in search of better economic opportunities.
According to Luxon, New Zealand start-ups have already begun benefiting from the policy.
“While everyone else around the world is tightening restrictions, we’ve opened the doors and our start-ups have benefited enormously from the capital flowing in, as well as from the knowledge and technical expertise these investors have brought,” he said.
Since the programme was comprehensively overhauled in April 2025, applicants from North America, Europe and Asia have committed a combined NZ$4.8 billion, through investments of either NZ$5 million or NZ$10 million each.
That figure is comparable to the NZ$14.8 billion in foreign investment recorded during the first quarter of this year.
Lachlan Nixon, co-founder of venture capital firm Motion Capital, said the programme had become “a badge of honour in Silicon Valley”.
Data show that 277 applications have come from Americans, with Californians showing particularly strong interest in obtaining New Zealand residency.
“A massive influx of capital is coming, but what really matters is the quality of the people now investing in the New Zealand economy,” Nixon said. He added that 40% of a recent NZ$27 million fundraising round for high-growth New Zealand companies came from 30 holders of “golden visas”.
According to Luxon, companies benefiting from the programme include critical minerals firm Zethos, which appointed European steel industry veteran Francesc Rubiralta to its board.
Nixon said other companies backed under the programme include seed oil protein producer Miruku and magnesium mining company Aspiring Materials.
In the mountain town of Queenstown, a preferred destination for many applicants, locals refer to billionaires such as Peter Thiel and Anthony Malkin, whose foundation owns New York’s Empire State Building, as “the secret residents on the hills”.
Most prefer to keep their wealth and presence private. Thiel’s citizenship was inadvertently revealed during a parliamentary debate, while Malkin’s presence became public after fireworks he set off on New Year’s Eve sparked grass fires.
According to Cotality, their arrival has made Queenstown New Zealand’s most expensive property market, with a median home price of NZ$1.8 million, double the national average.
Under the visa programme’s rules, participants may purchase only residential properties worth more than NZ$5 million, a provision designed to prevent their presence from distorting the broader housing market.
“There are a lot of billionaires here. They just wear gumboots,” one property adviser said.
However, doubts remain about the programme’s benefits. Sam Stubbs, chief executive of pension fund Simplicity, said people should make “genuine investments” in the country rather than seek special treatment in exchange for “a small amount of money” invested in a venture capital fund.
“Heaven comes at a price. It’s a price we all pay,” Stubbs said.
Some applicants have also voiced concerns. Courtney Andelman, who runs a venture capital fund in Santa Barbara with her husband Jim, successfully obtained a visa last year and now visits New Zealand regularly.
“There’s something magical in the air and the water. It’s an incredibly healthy place,” Andelman said.
However, she said she wanted to settle in a smaller South Island city such as Nelson, where her investments could have a greater impact, but found very few properties worth more than NZ$5 million.
She also complained that under New Zealand’s tax rules, if her family spends more than 183 days a year in the country, their worldwide income becomes subject to New Zealand taxation.
Andelman said she loved New Zealand but expressed concern and issued an implicit warning.
“How to make every dollar achieve its highest and best use is a question we constantly ask ourselves. If New Zealand doesn’t offer the best value, we’ll go somewhere else. Every one of those dollars is mobile.”
America
Oil industry lobbies White House to avert potential Trump export ban
Oil industry executives and White House officials are engaging in a new push to prevent any move by the administration to restrict US oil exports.
According to a report by Politico, industry representatives say these efforts extend to the White House Domestic Policy Council, the National Energy Dominance Council, the Department of Energy, and Chief of Staff Susie Wiles.
Trump believes that oil prices could harm the Republicans’ chances of maintaining control of Congress in the November mid-term elections.
“Everyone from the industry and within the administration is working hand in hand to prevent this,” an energy industry executive said.
The individual added that White House officials had not formally raised the idea, “but everyone knows Trump will act like Trump again.”
The White House maintains that export restrictions are not on the agenda.
White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement: “While the President and the entire energy team are taking various measures to mitigate temporary disruptions in the energy market, the administration has been very clear: there is no plan to impose restrictions on oil and gas exports.”
White House representatives did not confirm whether industry lobbyists had approached specific agencies or officials to discuss the export issue. Department of Energy representatives did not respond to queries.
However, although administration officials have guaranteed since the early days of the Iranian war that an export ban was off the table, Trump’s directive to the Department of Justice in June to investigate oil companies on charges of price gouging put the sector on high alert.
Concerns within the industry mounted after Trump stated on Monday that oil giants Exxon Mobil and Chevron were making “too much money.”
Industry executives now fear Trump may try to make a move against them by restricting fuel export activities abroad, which have boomed since the start of the US-Israeli war against Iran.
Another industry official said the sector had reiterated its concerns regarding export controls to the White House “very recently.”
The Trump administration has already tried several different approaches to lower prices that enjoy broader support from the oil industry.
These include the release of millions of barrels of oil from the country’s strategic petroleum reserve and the temporary suspension of the Jones Act to make it easier for non-American vessels to transport oil and natural gas between US ports.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former oil company CEO, and Vice President JD Vance have repeatedly opposed the idea of limiting or banning exports.
Wright stated in May that the administration had “definitely” ruled out the option of banning diesel exports.
Mike Sommers, president of the American Petroleum Institute, said he was “confident” Trump understood the need to maintain oil exports, recalling that early in the crisis, the president had encouraged other countries to buy American oil:
“The administration has repeatedly expressed that they are opposed to [export controls]. Therefore, I do not think there is any change in their stance at the moment. Frankly, it feels as though we have to clarify this issue every three weeks.”
In a note sent to clients on Tuesday, consultancy firm ClearView Energy stated that the moment for the White House to take a step toward limiting fuel exports “might be approaching.”
The firm noted that former President Joe Biden had considered imposing export restrictions ahead of the 2022 mid-term elections following a “long summer of high petrol prices” caused by the war in Ukraine.
US crude oil exports increased by approximately 30% compared with last year, reaching nearly 3.5 million barrels per day by the end of July.
Shipments of refined products such as diesel, petrol, and other types of oil rose by 20%, exceeding 8 million barrels per day.
Opponents of exports argue that sending these cargoes abroad leads to rising prices domestically.
However, the oil and gas industry contends that closing the door to exports would harm the domestic market and cause their production to decline.
“Export bans may seem politically attractive, but ultimately they will lead to the exact opposite of the intended effect,” said a refining industry lobbyist who noted they were in contact with the White House on the matter, arguing that cutting off American exports from international markets would mean “a decline in US production, supply shortages, further upward pressure on domestic prices, and even greater disruptions in the global market.”
Chet Thompson, president and CEO of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, stated that export controls would force US refiners to produce less petrol because they would lose commercial channels to ship other surplus fuels, such as diesel, produced during the process.
America
US and Ukraine restore intelligence sharing to former levels
Three US senators have reported that intelligence sharing between Washington and Kyiv has reached its former level. The White House declined to disclose details of the current intelligence relationship, emphasizing that President Donald Trump remains focused on ending the conflict.
American senators reported that intelligence sharing between the US and Ukraine has returned to its previous level.
According to a report by Politico, the senators offering this assessment include Democratic Senator Mark Warner, a long-standing advocate for increasing aid to Ukraine.
Commenting on the matter, Warner said: “I don’t want to get into details, but things have improved.” Republican senators John Cornyn and Roger Wicker stated that information sharing has accelerated during a period of “strategic importance”.
Democratic Senator Tim Kaine also noted that he has observed signs of a revival in information sharing between the US and Ukraine.
The White House did not disclose details regarding the current state of its intelligence-sharing relationship with Ukraine. However, in comments to Politico, it emphasized that US President Donald Trump is focused on contributing to the termination of the conflict.
A White House official told Politico: “The President and his team remain committed to playing a constructive role in ending the war between Russia and Ukraine and remain optimistic that we will ultimately reach a peace agreement.”
Last autumn, the Financial Times reported that Trump had issued instructions to prepare for sharing intelligence data that could assist Ukraine in conducting strikes deep inside Russian territory.
Russian authorities are demanding that Western nations cease providing military aid to Ukraine, emphasizing that such assistance will not prevent Moscow from achieving its military campaign objectives.
Last year, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs requested that the US side clarify information regarding the transfer of intelligence data to Ukraine.
According to statements from the Kremlin, Russia has long been aware that the US and NATO countries collect intelligence and transfer it to the Ukrainian military, noting that this is “not a new development”.
Nevertheless, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that Russia will not tolerate attacks by the Armed Forces of Ukraine and will continue to respond forcefully.
In June, President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia is prepared to conduct negotiations with Ukraine on the basis of the agreements reached in Istanbul.
According to Putin, the parties must also take into account the agreements reached between Moscow and Washington in Anchorage, the situation on the front line, and the conditions for a settlement previously set out by Russia.
-
Opinion2 weeks agoEgypt Under Fire: What Does the Damietta Strike Mean for Global Energy Markets?
-
Asia1 week agoChina launches global tax audit on super-rich to recover billions
-
Europe2 weeks agoEuropean nations seek alternatives to Palantir amid growing digital sovereignty concerns
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoDefense Priorities director warns US air strategy in Middle East faces tactical limits
-
Europe1 week agoEuropean carmakers turn to Chinese rivals to salvage struggling plants
-
Europe2 weeks agoEU governments push to narrow “Made in Europe” preference rules in industrial draft bill
-
Opinion2 weeks agoMacroeconomic consequences of asymmetric UAV attacks in Russia
-
Europe2 weeks agoDenmark to deploy conscripts to Greenland for first time amid Arctic security risks
