With the White House set to expand its Ratepayer Protection Pledge today, and following unanimous House committee approval of the Ratepayer Protection Act, I wanted to share the following perspective from the Cato Institute’s Travis Fisher.

Fisher argues that both initiatives draw welcome attention to the risk of data-center costs being shifted onto residential customers but are unlikely to change utility or regulatory behavior on their own. The White House pledge is voluntary, while the House bill uses Section 111 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act to require state regulators only to consider a ratepayer-protection standard, not adopt or enforce one.

As Fisher puts it, “The pledge and the House bill embrace the right goal, but neither has much force behind it. The pledge is voluntary, and the bill only directs states to consider a standard. Without an enforcement mechanism, these measures will not meet the moment. Policymakers should reject the ‘thoughts and prayers’ approach and respond to the looming electricity crisis by enacting sweeping pro-competition reforms.”

If you’re interested in speaking with Travis about the White House pledge or the House legislation, I’m happy to connect you. You can also find Travis’s recent commentary on how the Trump administration can protect electricity customers and support data center development here.