11:44PM, October 16, 2026

With the November midterm election fast approaching, data centers and the cost of living have become hot button issues. One often cited issue that spans both topics is protecting individual consumers from energy bill increases due to the increase in demand for energy from data centers. The past few months have seen government action on the issue, with the Ratepayer Protection Act in Congress and consumer price protection agreement between Duke Energy and North Carolina Public Staff. However, both have faced the same criticism of not doing enough. 

In June, the Ratepayer Protection Act was introduced in the house to direct states to consider how to ensure that data centers pay the cost for the large loads of electricity they require. Notably the Act only calls for states to consider the issue and hold hearings on standards for forcing data centers to bear the cost of extra infrastructure needed, but does not call for or require further action.

The Act was met with overwhelming support in the House, passing 417-3 in mid-September, before flailing in the Senate, with a failed motion to proceed on the measure. Despite overwhelming Democratic support in the house, only 4 Democratic senators voted yes on the procedural motion. Those not in support felt that the bill did not go far enough to protect Americans from increases in their energy bills. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the bill “a fraud” and “an ineffectual participation trophy” for Republicans to tout ahead of the midterms. 

In North Carolina, on October 7, 2026, the North Carolina Public Staff entered into a consumer price protection agreement with Duke Energy, the largest energy provider in the state. The agreement aims to protect consumers from increases in energy costs due to data centers. Subject to approval by the North Carolina Utilities Commission, which is expected to reach a decision by mid-November, the agreement would put new requirements in place for all large-load customers that sign a service agreement after June 1, 2026. The key requirements on large-load customers include making a non-refundable, upfront payment for electric grid facilities serving only that customer; paying upfront deposits and making security guarantees for grid upgrades that serve all customers; and taking service under a high load factor rate schedule.

This agreement, much like the Ratepayer Protection Act, has already received conflicted responses from North Carolina Officials. Governor Josh Stein supported the measures as they create “a new floor,” but stated that there is “more work to do to ensure families aren’t left footing the bill.” Similarly, Attorney General Jeff Jackson had a mixed reaction to the proposal. He noted that the agreement is a “massive step forward in making sure data centers pay their fair share” but that it was not quite the full solution that he has been seeking. Attorney General Jackson has been pushing for more extensive protection including a statewide large-load tariff, Utilities Commission oversight of contracts with large energy users, minimum monthly bills, long term contracts with exit penalties, and required cutbacks during power strains in the first year of service. 

how and when will American consumers be protected from the threat of data centers causing higher energy bills?

With the Ratepayer Protection Act stalling in the Senate and mixed feelings about the Duke Energy agreement in the North Carolina executive branch, the question that remains is: how and when will American consumers be protected from the threat of data centers causing higher energy bills?

The argument that neither action does enough cannot be made without acknowledging that both do something to protect consumers. While the Ratepayer Protection Act did not create real protections, it was a starting point, applying pressure on states to consider how to protect their citizens. As for the Duke Energy Agreement, it does much more, requiring data centers to pay their way and helps to strengthen the power grid for all. 

While the future of both the Ratepayer Protection Act and the Duke Energy agreement is uncertain, both have windows of opportunity in November. The Ratepayer Protection Act’s lack of protection and pre-midterm timing certainly played into its procedural vote failure. Importantly, though, the bill is not dead yet. In the sessions following the November midterm elections, there is an opportunity to revisit or amend the bill to provide federal momentum behind state action to protect consumers. Likewise, there is a window of opportunity for the narrative surrounding the Duke Energy Agreement to change from partial to full support in recognition of the concrete protections it puts in place. This window is narrow, falling between the midterms on November 3, 2026, and the expected mid-November decision. 

The criticisms of both actions inherently recognize that each is a step towards protecting American consumers. While neither may be the complete protection needed or wanted, each is a starting point to getting there. All progress must start somewhere. For North Carolinians, and Americans more broadly, some action now, with more to follow later, is better than no action at all.

James Davies

James Davies is currently a second-year student at the University of North Carolina School of Law and is a staff member of the North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology. James holds a Bachelor of Business Administration in Finance and a Master of Science in Business Analytics from the College of William & Mary.