As electric bills rise, evidence mounts that data centers share blame

Data Talk

Energy hungry data centers are increasing electric costs. Getty Images

Amid rising electric bills, states are under pressure to insulate regular household and business ratepayers from the costs of feeding Big Tech's energy-hungry data centers.

It's not clear that any state has a solution and the actual effect of data centers on electricity bills is difficult to pin down. Some critics question whether states have the spine to take a hard line against tech behemoths like Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Meta.

But more than a dozen states have begun taking steps as data centers drive a rapid build-out of power plants and transmission lines.

That has meant pressuring the nation's biggest power grid operator to clamp down on price increases, studying the effect of data centers on electricity bills or pushing data center owners to pay a larger share of local transmission costs.

Rising power bills are “something legislators have been hearing a lot about. It’s something we’ve been hearing a lot about. More people are speaking out at the public utility commission in the past year than I’ve ever seen before,” said Charlotte Shuff of the Oregon Citizens’ Utility Board, a consumer advocacy group. “There’s a massive outcry.”

Not the typical electric customer

Some data centers could require more electricity than cities the size of Pittsburgh, Cleveland or New Orleans, and make huge factories look tiny by comparison. That's pushing policymakers to rethink a system that, historically, has spread transmission costs among classes of consumers that are proportional to electricity use.

“A lot of this infrastructure, billions of dollars of it, is being built just for a few customers and a few facilities and these happen to be the wealthiest companies in the world,” said Ari Peskoe, who directs the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard University. “I think some of the fundamental assumptions behind all this just kind of breaks down.”

A fix, Peskoe said, is a “can of worms" that pits ratepayer classes against one another.

Some officials downplay the role of data centers in pushing up electric bills.

Tricia Pridemore, who sits on Georgia’s Public Service Commission and is president of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, pointed to an already tightened electricity supply and increasing costs for power lines, utility poles, transformers and generators as utilities replace aging equipment or harden it against extreme weather.

The data centers needed to accommodate the artificial intelligence boom are still in the regulatory planning stages, Pridemore said, and the Data Center Coalition, which represents Big Tech firms and data center developers, has said its members are committed to paying their fair share.

But growing evidence suggests that the electricity bills of some Americans are rising to subsidize the massive energy needs of Big Tech as the U.S. competes in a race against China for artificial intelligence superiority.

Data and analytics firm Wood Mackenzie published a report in recent weeks that suggested 20 proposed or effective specialized rates for data centers in 16 states it studied aren’t nearly enough to cover the cost of a new natural gas power plant.

In other words, unless utilities negotiate higher specialized rates, other ratepayer classes — residential, commercial and industrial — are likely paying for data center power needs.

Meanwhile, Monitoring Analytics, the independent market watchdog for the mid-Atlantic grid, produced research in June showing that 70% — or $9.3 billion — of last year's increased electricity cost was the result of data center demand.

States are responding

Last year, five governors led by Pennsylvania's Josh Shapiro began pushing back against power prices set by the mid-Atlantic grid operator, PJM Interconnection, after that amount spiked nearly sevenfold. They warned of customers “paying billions more than is necessary.”

PJM has yet to propose ways to guarantee that data centers pay their freight, but Monitoring Analytics is floating the idea that data centers should be required to procure their own power.

In a filing last month, it said that would avoid a "massive wealth transfer” from average people to tech companies.

At least a dozen states are eyeing ways to make data centers pay higher local transmission costs.

In Oregon, a data center hot spot, lawmakers passed legislation in June ordering state utility regulators to develop new — presumably higher — power rates for data centers.

The Oregon Citizens’ Utility Board says there is clear evidence that costs to serve data centers are being spread across all customers — at a time when some electric bills there are up 50% over the past four years and utilities are disconnecting more people than ever.

New Jersey’s governor signed legislation last month commissioning state utility regulators to study whether ratepayers are being hit with “unreasonable rate increases” to connect data centers and to develop a specialized rate to charge data centers.

In some other states, like Texas and Utah, governors and lawmakers are trying to avoid a supply-and-demand crisis that leaves ratepayers on the hook — or in the dark.

Doubts about states protecting ratepayers

In Indiana, state utility regulators approved a settlement between Indiana Michigan Power Co., Amazon, Google, Microsoft and consumer advocates that set parameters for data center payments for service.

Kerwin Olsen, of the Citizens Action Council of Indiana, a consumer advocacy group, signed the settlement and called it a “pretty good deal” that contained more consumer protections than what state lawmakers passed.

But, he said, state law doesn't force large power users like data centers to publicly reveal their electric usage, so pinning down whether they're paying their fair share of transmission costs "will be a challenge.”

In a March report, the Environmental and Energy Law Program at Harvard University questioned the motivation of utilities and regulators to shield ratepayers from footing the cost of electricity for data centers.

Both utilities and states have incentives to attract big customers like data centers, it said.

To do it, utilities — which must get their rates approved by regulators — can offer “special deals to favored customers” like a data center and effectively shift the costs of those discounts to regular ratepayers, the authors wrote. Many state laws can shield disclosure of those rates, they said.

In Pennsylvania, an emerging data center hot spot, the state utility commission is drafting a model rate structure for utilities to consider adopting. An overarching goal is to get data center developers to put their money where their mouth is.

“We’re talking about real transmission upgrades, potentially hundreds of millions of dollars,” commission chairman Stephen DeFrank said. “And that’s what you don’t want the ratepayer to get stuck paying for."

From Your Site Articles

A new report shows that Texas has about 16 public charging stations per 1,000 EVs. Photo by Kindel Media/Pexels

Texas among top states for EV charging access, report shows

by the numbers

A new study from FinanceBuzz reports that Texas has the fifth most public electric vehicle charging stations among states in the U.S.

In its Electric Vehicle (EV) Statistics [2025]: Trends in Sales, Savings, and More report, FinanceBuzz, a personal finance and investment adviser, compiled electric vehicle data to find sales trends, adoption rates, charging infrastructure, costs, savings and more.

Texas has a total of 3,709 public EV charging stations, which equals about 16 stations per 1,000 EVs, according to the report. The remaining top five included:

No. 1 California with 17,122 EV charging stations
No. 2 New York with 4,814 EV charging stations
No.3 Massachusetts with 3,738 EV charging stations
No. 4 Florida with 3,715 EV charging stations

Los Angeles had the most public charging stations at 1,609 among U.S. cities. Austin was Texas’s top city with 656 stations.

The study also looked at how much Americans are spending on transportation, and found that the average American using a gas vehicle spends $1,865 annually on fuel. FinanceBuzz found that electric vehicle owners would pay 65 percent less on energy costs. Calculations were based on driving 14,489 miles annually, which measures to 37.9 miles per day. The full report sourced data from the International Energy Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Transportation, AAA, the U.S. Energy Information Administration and other organizations.

The report said Americans purchased over 1.5 million EVs in 2024, which equals approximately 10 percent of all new light-duty vehicles sold, citing information from the International Council on Clean Transportation.

While Tesla remains the most popular make, 24 new EV models were launched in 2024 by other companies, which represents a 15 percent increase from the previous year.

Other trends in the report included:

The U.S. now has more than 64,000 public charging stations and over 168,000 charging ports, which is up from fewer than 1,000 stations in 2010.
An average EV owner will spend about $654 per year on electricity, compared to $1,865 for a gas-powered vehicle. The savings equate to about $1,211 per year.
In 2024, U.S. EV sales surpassed 1.5 million, but the pace slowed compared to the previous year, with a 10 percent increase versus 40 percent in 2023.
Insuring an EV can be more costly because parts are harder to come by, making repairs and replacements more expensive.
In the second quarter of 2024, nearly half of new EVs were leased, which is a 28 percentage point increase since 2021.

A new report from the Department of Energy says the risk of power blackouts will be 100 times greater in 2030. Photo via Getty Images.

DOE report warns of widespread power blackouts by 2030 amid grid challenges

grid report

Scheduled retirements of traditional power plants, dependence on energy sources like wind and solar, and the growth of energy-gobbling data centers put the U.S. — including Texas — at much greater risk of massive power outages just five years from now, a new U.S. Department of Energy report suggests.

The report says the U.S. power grid won’t be able to sustain the combined impact of plant closures, heavy reliance on renewable energy, and the boom in data center construction. As a result, the risk of power blackouts will be 100 times greater in 2030, according to the report.

“The status quo of more [plant] retirements and less dependable replacement generation is neither consistent with winning the AI race and ensuring affordable energy for all Americans, nor with continued grid reliability … . Absent intervention, it is impossible for the nation’s bulk power system to meet the AI growth requirements while maintaining a reliable power grid and keeping energy costs low for our citizens,” the report says.

Avoiding planned shutdowns of traditional energy plants, such as those fueled by coal and oil, would improve grid reliability, but a shortfall would still persist in the territory served by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), particularly during the winter, the report says. ERCOT operates the power grid for the bulk of Texas.

According to the report, 104 gigawatts of U.S. power capacity from traditional plants is set to be phased out by 2030. “This capacity is not being replaced on a one-to-one basis,” says the report, “and losing this generation could lead to significant outages when weather conditions do not accommodate wind and solar generation.”

To meet reliability targets, ERCOT would need 10,500 megawatts of additional “perfect” capacity by 2030, the report says. Perfect capacity refers to maximum power output under ideal conditions.

“ERCOT continues to undergo rapid change, and supply additions will have a difficult time keeping up with demand growth,” Brent Nelson, managing director of markets and strategy at Ascend Analytics, a provider of data and analytics for the energy sector, said in a release earlier this summer. “With scarcity conditions ongoing and weather-dependent, expect a volatile market with boom years and bust years.”

Texas's evolving energy landscape means affordability for residents, a new report finds. Photo via Pexels

Here's how Texas ranks when it comes to energy affordability

$$$

The Lone Star State is an economical option when it comes to energy costs, one report has found.

WalletHub, a personal finance website, analyzed energy affordability across the 50 states in its new report, Energy Costs by State in 2024, which looked at residential energy types: electricity, natural gas, motor fuel and home heating oil.

Texas ranked as the fourth cheapest state for energy, or No. 47 in the report that sorted by most expensive average monthly energy bill. Texans' average energy cost per month is $437, the report found.

Source: WalletHub

Here's how Texas ranked in key categories, with No. 1 being the most expensive and No. 50 being the cheapest:

No. 27 – price of electricity
No. 15 – price of natural gas
No. 44 – natural-gas consumption per consumer
No. 40 – price of motor fuel
No. 16 – motor-fuel consumption per driver
No. 49 – home heating-oil consumption per consumer

With the most expensive state — Wyoming — being over four times the cost compared to the cheapest state — New Mexico, the difference between energy costs between states varies greatly, but the reason for that isn't exactly a mystery.

“Energy prices vary from state to state based on several factors including energy sources, supply and demand, energy regulation, regulatory authorities, competition, and the free market," explains expert Justin Perryman, a professor at Washington University School of Law. "[States] such as Texas have a deregulated electricity marketplace. Missouri and 17 other states have a regulated energy market. In deregulated markets there are typically more energy providers which often leads to more competition and lower prices; however, other factors can contribute to energy prices.

"In regulated markets, the state energy regulatory authority sets the prices of energy," he continues. "It can be politically unpopular to raise energy costs, so those states may benefit from lower energy costs. Factors such as the state’s commitment to renewable energy may also factor into energy costs. Proximity to less expensive energy sources can lower energy costs.”

Texas's evolving energy landscape has been well documented, and earlier this year the state's solar energy generation surpassed the output by coal, according to a report from the Institute For Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

A separate report found that, when compared to other states, Texas will account for the biggest share of new utility-scale solar capacity and new battery storage capacity in 2024. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the state will make up 35 percent of new utility-scale solar capacity in the U.S. this year.

The politicians point to a recent Texas merger. Photo via Getty Images

Politicians urge Justice Department to prosecute alleged collusion, price-fixing by oil industry

call for action

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and 22 other Democratic senators are calling on the Department of Justice to “use every tool” at its disposal to prevent and prosecute alleged collusion and price-fixing in the oil industry.

In a letter Thursday to Attorney General Merrick Garland and other officials, the Democrats said a recent Federal Trade Commission investigation into a high-profile merger uncovered evidence of price-fixing by oil executives that led to higher energy costs for American families and businesses.

The FTC said earlier this month that Scott Sheffield, the former CEO of Texas-based Pioneer Natural Resources, colluded with OPEC and OPEC+ to potentially raise crude oil prices. Sheffield retired from the company in 2016 but returned as CEO in 2019. After retiring again in 2023, he continued to serve on its board.

The FTC cleared Houston-based ExxonMobil's $60 billion deal to buy Pioneer on May 2 but barred Sheffield from joining the new company’s board of directors. Pioneer, which is based in Dallas, said it disagreed with the allegations but would not impede closing of the merger, which was announced in 2023.

In a report, the FTC said collusion by Pioneer and others may have cost the average American household up to $500 per car in increased annual fuel costs, an amount Democrats called “an unwelcome tax that is particularly burdensome for lower-income families.'' Meanwhile, Exxon Mobil and other major oil companies collectively earned more than $300 billion in profits over the last two years, "a surge that many market experts believe cannot be explained away by increased production costs from the (coronavirus) pandemic or inflation,” Democrats said.

The letter calls for the Justice Department to launch an industry-wide investigation into possible violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. It outlined how “Big Oil’s alleged collusion with OPEC is a national security concern that aids countries looking to undermine the U.S.," including Russia and Iran.

“Corporate malfeasance must be confronted, or it will proliferate," the letter said. “These alleged offenses do not simply enrich corporations; hardworking Americans end up paying the price through higher costs for gas, fuel and related consumer products. The DOJ must protect consumers, small businesses and the public from petroleum-market collusion."

The letter by Senate Democrats was the latest in a series of partisan actions targeting the oil industry.

Separately, Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland have formally asked the Justice Department to investigate whether Exxon, Chevron and other oil companies misled the public over decades about the climate effects of burning fossil fuels. Whitehouse and Raskin led a multiyear investigation that uncovered what they described as “damning new documents that exposed the fossil fuel industry’s ongoing efforts to deceive the public and block climate action.”

Republicans, meanwhile, have attacked President Joe Biden's energy policies, including a freeze on liquefied natural gas exports, restrictions on new oil and gas leasing on a petroleum reserve in Alaska and a decision to charge companies higher rates to drill for oil and natural gas on federal lands.

Sen. John Barrasso, the top Republican on the Senate Energy Committee, said the Democratic president was “doing all he can to make it economically impossible to produce energy on federal lands.''

The letter released Thursday was signed by 23 Democrats, including Schumer, Whitehouse, Senate Commerce Committee Chairwoman Maria Cantwell of Washington state and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin of Illinois.

If you live in Texas, you're paying less than residents in almost every other state. Photo via Getty Images

Report ranks Texas as among least expensive states for energy

cha-ching

A new report analyzed energy costs across the United States to find out what states had the highest energy prices. Turns out, Texas falls rather low on that list.

The study from WalletHub ranked Texas as No. 49 on the list of the 2023 Most Energy-Expensive States. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, almost a third (27 percent) of the country report having difficulty meeting the energy needs of their household.

"To better understand the impact of energy on our finances relative to our location and consumption habits, WalletHub compared the total monthly energy bills in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia," reads the report. "Our analysis uses a special formula that accounts for the following residential energy types: electricity, natural gas, motor fuel and home heating oil."

The report ranked states based on their total monthly energy cost, but also identified the following:

Monthly electricity cost
Monthly natural-gas cost
Monthly motor-fuel cost
Monthly home heating-oil cost

Texas households' total monthly energy cost was reportedly $378, which is only beat by New Mexico ($373) and DC ($274). The top five most expensive states for monthly energy cost is as follows.

Wyoming at $845
North Dakota at $645
Alaska at $613
Connecticut at $593
Massachusetts at $589

When comparing to other states, Texas monthly electricity costs are relatively high. At $153 a month, the Lone Star State ranks No. 11 in that category. Meanwhile, when it comes to monthly home heating-oil cost, Texans pay an average of $0 a month, as do Mississippi residents.

Fuel prices are also cheaper in Texas, as the state ranks No. 49 with only Louisiana and Mississippi with lower costs, respectively.

While Texans can find some comfort in the lower-than-average energy costs, the whole country is expected to see some prices increase, one of the report's experts says.

"Most likely, energy prices will continue to rise in 2023, although perhaps more slowly than at times in the past," writes Peter C. Burns, director of the Center for Sustainable Energy at Notre Dame. "The war in Ukraine continues to create uncertainty in energy supplies in Europe, while pledges to reduce oil production in the interests of reducing greenhouse gas emissions will also contribute to increasing prices."

Source: WalletHub

Ad Placement 300x100

Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

Baker Hughes closes $13B acquisition of gas equipment maker Chart Industries

m&a activity

Houston-based energy technology company Baker Hughes has completed its $13.6 billion acquisition of Chart Industries, a provider of equipment and services for liquefying gases like LNG, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen.

Baker Hughes says the deal advances its “strategic vision” to be a leader in energy and industrial technology.

Jim Apostolides, who had previously served as chief infrastructure and performance officer at Baker Hughes, leads the Chart business in his new role as senior vice president. Chart President and CEO Jill Evanko left the company in January to become CEO of Duravant, which makes equipment for food processing, packaging and materials handling.

Publicly traded Chart reported $4.3 billion in revenue for fiscal year 2025. Its customers operate in sectors such as gas infrastructure, nuclear, data centers, carbon capture and storage, space, and geothermal energy.

“Chart’s thermal management solutions bring complementary capabilities and aftermarket service offerings that accelerate our portfolio strategy,” Lorenzo Simonelli, chairman and CEO of Baker Hughes, said in a news release. “Together, we will expand the solutions we deliver across a broader range of energy and industrial markets and create greater value for customers and shareholders.”

Chart will operate as a new financial reporting segment within Baker Hughes, reflecting what Baker Hughes says is the “scale and strategic importance of its differentiated capabilities in air and gas handling, thermal management, and lifecycle services.”

Baker Hughes announced the Chart deal last July.

“We know Chart well, having worked alongside them on many critical energy infrastructure projects,” Signorelli said last year. “Their products and services are highly complementary to our offerings and strongly aligned with our intent to deliver distinctive and efficient end-to-end lifecycle solutions for our customers across their most critical applications.”

Chart’s website lists offices in Houston, The Woodlands, and Austin, with corporate headquarters in Ball Ground, Georgia. It’s unclear what will happen to those offices.

KBR appoints C-suite duo to lead forthcoming spinoff

Making Moves

In advance of the spinoff of its Mission Technology Solutions unit, Houston-based KBR has made two C-suite hires for the new business.

Michael LaRouche is coming aboard as president and CEO of the spinoff, currently called SpinCo, on Sept. 26. Nicholas Veasey joined as executive vice president and chief financial officer earlier this month, on July 1.

“Michael and Nick bring a highly complementary combination of operational leadership, financial expertise, and mission-driven experience, and together they will accelerate our impact for stakeholders,” Stuart Bradie, chairman, president and CEO of publicly traded KBR, said in a news release.

LaRouche currently is CEO of Serco North America, a Herndon, Virginia-based government services contractor. Veasey most recently was CFO of MAG Aerospace, a Fairfax, Virginia-based defense contractor.

SpinCo, a government services contractor, will launch with more than $5.3 billion in annual revenue and 20,000 employees. KBR’s total headcount is around 36,000. Branding for SpinCo, including a formal name, will be revealed in July.

“SpinCo is positioned as a top-tier provider of differentiated technology solutions, anchored by deep mission expertise, global scale, and a relentless commitment to delivering for our customers,” LaRouche says.

After the spinoff, the slimmed-down KBR will focus on its Sustainable Technology Solutions business, a provider of energy and industrial technology that generated $2.5 billion in revenue in 2025 and is designed to reduce carbon emissions and support energy transition efforts. Bradie will remain chairman, president and CEO of the business.

Both SpinCo and the new KBR will be public companies. The spinoff is scheduled to be completed in January 2027.

---

This article first appeared on InnovationMap.com.

Houston PE firm makes latest nuclear industry acquisition

nuclear deal

Houston-based private equity firm Pelican Energy Partners has acquired California-based Veridiam for an undisclosed amount in an effort to further increase the firm’s focus on the nuclear energy sector.

Veridiam is a strategic manufacturer that specializes in the precision fabrication of components and assemblies made from exotic metals or advanced alloys for the nuclear, aerospace, defense, space and medical fields.

Following the acquisition, Veridiam will continue to operate under its existing name and will led by its current management team, including CEO Brian Joyal.

“Joining the Pelican platform accelerates our strategic trajectory," Joyal said in a news release. "With Pelican's support, we will accelerate the modernization and expansion of our manufacturing capabilities to meet unprecedented demand across the nuclear, aerospace, defense, and medical sectors. This partnership also enables us to expand our portfolio of mission-critical products and engineered solutions while maintaining the uncompromising quality, precision, and reliability standards that have defined Veridiam for more than 60 years."

Since 2011, Pelican has raised over $1 billion in committed capital and has realized over 15 investments. Currently, Pelican is investing from its fourth fund, which aims to support and advance companies that provide critical services and products to the nuclear power industry.

In 2024, Pelican raised a $450 million fund to invest in nuclear energy services and equipment companies.

The Veridiam deal comes after Pelican has completed several nuclear acquisitions. The PE firm acquired New Hampshire-based Environmental Alternatives Inc., which provides nuclear decontamination services, in April; it acquired Georgia-based WSI Welding Solution in December, which services the nuclear sector.

"Veridiam sits at the center of our investment thesis and reflects the kind of deal Pelican does best," Mike Scott, managing partner and founder of Pelican Energy Partners, added in the news release. "With the right capital and operating support, we see a clear opportunity to strengthen the business, invest in its capabilities, and create long-term value for customers and shareholders."

View All Listings

ENERGYCAPITALHTX EMAILS ARE AWESOME