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
Iran war costs US economy $265 billion as household burden mounts
The economic toll of the conflict on the US has reached $265 billion in the roughly eight months since the start of joint US and Israeli strikes against Iran.
According to calculations by Moody’s Analytics Chief Economist Mark Zandi, this amount imposes an additional burden of approximately $2,000 on the budget of an average American family.
Sharing data on his X account on Tuesday, Zandi noted that the cost per household since the war began stands at about $2,000, with nationwide economic losses reaching $265 billion.
This estimate is seven times higher than the direct military spending figure reported to Congress by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, which covers the period between the start of the strikes on 28 February and the end of July.
While Hegseth’s official figures cover only direct military operations, the conflict’s impact on global markets and oil prices is driving up inflation and day-to-day living costs, deepening the real burden on household budgets.
Fuel and heating costs strain budgets
Energy items account for the largest share of the additional expenses facing American households. The surge in fuel, home heating, and transport costs has generated an extra bill of about $1,100 per family.
Zandi noted that the price of regular petrol, which hovered just below $3 per gallon before the war, has risen to $4.37, while diesel has exceeded $6 and jet fuel has nearly doubled.
Pointing out that a marked rise in residential heating fuel costs is driving up spending as winter approaches, Zandi said current price levels continue to add roughly $50 a week to family budgets.
Researchers at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs are also tracking the impact of rising fuel prices on consumers.
According to data from the institute, US consumers have paid an extra $133.3 billion for fuel products since 28 February.
During this period, petrol prices rose by more than 46% and diesel climbed by over 70%. Of this additional burden borne by consumers, $73.5 billion stemmed from petrol and $59.8 billion from diesel. This calculation translates into an extra cost of $1,017.76 per household nationwide.
Loan interest rates and operational outlays inflate the bill
Another decisive factor in the economic picture has been the rise in interest rates.
Zandi reported that climbing interest rates have created a cost of approximately $540 per household.
Fixed-rate home mortgage rates, which stood below 6% before the war, have climbed to roughly 7.5%, Zandi said, adding that long-term rates have also increased substantially.
Direct military operations, meanwhile, represent a cost of $360 per household based on Pentagon data.
However, experts point out that repair, maintenance, and equipment replenishment expenses are excluded from the published figures, meaning actual military spending on the ground could exceed Pentagon estimates.
Linda Bilmes, a war budget specialist who teaches public policy at Harvard Kennedy School, said she is certain the conflict’s bill will reach $1 trillion, adding, “Maybe we’re already there.”
Trump defends spending as public support drops
The mounting economic strain is fuelling backlash against the military campaign and US President Donald Trump’s handling of the process.
A Pew Research Centre survey conducted on 28 September-4 October among 5,062 adults revealed that 65% of Americans disapprove of the way Trump is handling the Iran strikes.
The proportion of those who consider the use of military force justified dropped four percentage points compared with March, falling to 34%.
Emphasizing that the total cost has wiped out roughly half of the average American household’s income gains over the past eight months, Zandi said it is natural for public support for the war to remain so low.
According to figures shared by pollster Nate Silver, Trump’s net approval rating has tumbled to an all-time low of minus 23.5 points.
Defending the military intervention against Iran, Trump described the costs as “a small price to pay to keep our country and the world safe.”
With the surging cost of living piling pressure on Republicans ahead of the November midterm elections, Trump announced last month that he would provide a $5,000 cash payment to every adult in the country if his party maintains its majorities in both chambers of Congress.
America
US fines Bank of America $1.21bn over money laundering and sanctions
The US Department of the Treasury has imposed a total of $1.21 billion in financial penalties on Bank of America, one of the country’s largest financial institutions, for violating anti-money laundering legislation and sanctions regimes.
According to a statement published by the department, the bank was accused of failing to report suspicious transactions in a timely manner, failing to monitor financial movements that posed national security risks, and providing services to clients on sanctions lists.
Decisions by units operating under the Treasury Department accounted for the largest components of the penalty package.
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) penalised the bank for failing to report more than $5 billion in suspicious transactions in a timely manner.
More than $1 billion of that amount was noted to be directly linked to national security risks, including the operations of China-based money laundering networks.
Under the settlement reached with FinCEN, Bank of America admitted to willfully violating the Bank Secrecy Act. The bank was required to conduct an additional review covering suspicious transactions and to assess the effectiveness of its financial monitoring system.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) separately fined the bank $750 million over structural deficiencies in its financial monitoring system.
The OCC stated that the bank failed to maintain adequate oversight over trillions of dollars in fund transfers and did not remedy the violations despite a formal notice served in December 2024.
The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) also stepped in over millions of dollars in transactions carried out in breach of sanctions regulations. OFAC reached an $11.6 million settlement agreement with Bank of America concerning 475 distinct potential sanctions violations.
Assessing the matter, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said, “The actions taken today send a clear message that even the largest financial institutions are not above the law.”
UK fines banks over breaches of Russia sanctions
Alongside the penalty decision in the US, similar sanctions scrutiny is being carried out across European financial centres.
In September, the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI), an agency of the UK Treasury, fined Citibank’s London branch (CBNA London) £4.7 million for violating sanctions targeting Russia.
According to findings by the British regulator, between February and November 2022 following the outbreak of armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the bank processed 970 payments worth a combined £19.7 million, circumventing asset freezes and other restrictions. The government stated that the majority of the violations were linked to corporate accounts owned or controlled by sanctioned individuals. Russia, meanwhile, describes sanctions imposed by Western nations as illegal.
During the spring, OFSI also fined the London branch of Germany’s Deutsche Bank £165,000 ($221,000) for transferring funds to the Russian online streaming platform Okko.
Over the same period, the watchdog imposed a £390,000 fine on Apple’s European entity, Apple Distribution International (ADI), for a similar violation.
America
Musk boosts Republican midterm funding despite pledge to curb spending
The world’s richest person, Elon Musk, has donated $276 million over the past three months to political action committees and conservative organizations supporting Republicans ahead of the upcoming US midterm elections.
The latest transfer brings the total midterm donations from Musk, the chief executive of Tesla and SpaceX, to $366 million.
First reported by The New York Times, the figures were confirmed to The Hill by a spokesperson for America PAC, which Musk founded. These latest expenditures establish Musk as the largest known donor of the 2026 midterms.
The bulk of Musk’s financial backing between July and September was directed towards congressional races.
The US billionaire transferred $158 million to the Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC supporting Republican Senate candidates, and $20 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund, which finances House Republicans.
Millions divided among various committees
Musk, who provided more than $76 million during the period to America PAC, an entity he founded during the 2024 election cycle, also funded state-level contests.
The businessman transferred $10 million to the Lone Star Liberty PAC, which supports Texas Republican Senate candidate Ken Paxton, while donating $10 million to the Republican Governors Association and $2 million to the Republican Attorneys General Association.
In statements given to The New York Times and confirmed by The Hill, America PAC spokesperson Andrew Romeo argued that if Democrats take control in Washington and win critical state races, the country faces the risk of becoming one with indefensible borders.
Romeo said the investments enable the Republican apparatus to deliver its messages to voters.
Field spending continues despite talk of retreat
Musk, who kept his distance from politics for many years, entered the arena by spending hundreds of millions of dollars for Donald Trump during the 2024 election.
Accompanying Trump on campaign trails, Musk subsequently took charge of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which sparked controversy through federal employment and budget cuts.
Musk stepped down from his White House role in late May 2025 and remained politically quiet for months following a public rift with Trump.
After announcing last May that he would sharply scale back his political spending, Musk told The Economist in a July interview that he had become overly involved in politics and had gone too far.
Despite those remarks, Musk pressed ahead with political activity in July by authorizing America PAC to spend between $100 million and $120 million on a fresh field operation aimed at driving conservative voter turnout in the 2026 midterms.
Having repaired ties with Trump following their public spat, Musk joined the US president on an official visit to China in May and was also present during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Washington last month.
-
Europe2 weeks agoGerman interior ministers drop unanimity rule to counter AfD veto
-
Europe2 weeks agoKey European allies excluded from US-led NATO meeting in Poland
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoWhile the West breeds crises, Eurasia weaves peace and development, says Prof. Zhang Weiwei
-
Middle East2 weeks agoNetanyahu holds secret UAE talks with Saudi Arabia and Arab officials
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoThe European Union’s peace project has collapsed, MEP von der Schulenburg says
-
Opinion2 weeks agoA new world in the East, old dogmas in the West
-
America2 weeks agoMusk appointed co-director of Pentagon future warfare initiative
-
Asia2 weeks agoSouth Korea plans $120B spend on eight US nuclear power plants
