Senate amends and approves bill targeting large energy users as data-center debate splits chamber

The Delaware Senate on June 30 passed House substitute 1 for House Bill 233, a measure that sets state-level rules for large-energy-use facilities — including proposed data centers — and seeks to limit cost shifts to residential ratepayers.

Senators heard expert testimony and stakeholder concerns before voting. A witness identified as a Constellation Energy representative, who said he has “been in the industry for 42 years,” advised the panel that PJM and FERC processes are still unfolding and urged care in timing regulatory changes. Jamieson Tweedy, the state’s public advocate, said the state must act before large facilities submit applications: “whatever standards we are putting in place … needs to be in place before those facilities start applying,” and he highlighted a March 1, 2027 PJM deadline for certain procedural steps.

Senator Hansen, the bill’s sponsor on the floor, framed the measure as a way to protect non-large customers from bearing the costs of new large users while preserving Delaware’s ability to welcome industry. She told colleagues the bill directs the Public Service Commission to promulgate regulations consistent with PJM’s evolving rules and that the legislation contemplates future technical adjustments if FERC or PJM change parameters.

Business groups and the Newcastle County Chamber signaled concerns about timing and unintended impacts. Jeffrey Stroell of the Newcastle County Chamber told senators that multiple trade organizations and labor had asked for a pause to resolve outstanding ambiguities, including aggregation language that could sweep in non-data-center industrial users; he urged more time to “get it right.” The chamber also said utilities have paused large interconnections under an existing tariff proceeding, and some projects may be constrained by ongoing CPCN or Coastal Zone Act issues.

Senators debated whether to wait for FERC and PJM orders. The Senate approved Senate Amendment 2 to clarify definitions and thresholds, which passed on roll call (20 yes, 1 no). The amended house substitute then passed the full Senate on a later roll call (15 yes, 6 no). The bill will return to the House for any concurrence steps required by amendments.

Supporters said the bill balances economic opportunity and protection of ordinary ratepayers; critics said stakeholders need more time and clearer definitions to prevent collateral impacts on manufacturers and other large users.

Outcome and next step: The Senate incorporated its amendment and declared the amended house substitute passed; the bill will proceed to the legislative steps required for enactment and any necessary reconciliation with the House.