Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves bill to set guardrails for large data centers after debate on utility costs
Summary
The Tennessee House passed HB 18 47, a rewritten bill that applies new limits to how utilities can recover infrastructure costs tied to large data centers and establishes transparency requirements; supporters said the measure protects ratepayers while critics warned amendments left loopholes. The bill passed on third reading.
The Tennessee House passed HB 18 47 on third reading after a lengthy debate over who should shoulder the cost of electric infrastructure for large data centers.
Representative Revson Butler, the bill's sponsor, told colleagues the most recent amendment ‘‘limits the data centers to 50 megawatts, not a 100 megawatts,’’ and argued the measure includes consumer safeguards for ratepayers while providing a framework for utilities and developers.
Opponents, including Representative Pearson, said earlier committee and floor amendments narrowed the bill so much that it no longer protects many communities. ‘‘This amendment makes a general statement about protecting residents, but has several exceptions... allowing utilities to reimburse data centers for infrastructure cost,’’ Pearson said, warning utilities could still pass most costs back to customers. Pearson urged clearer transparency requirements and questioned whether local utilities and the Tennessee Valley Authority would be constrained in practice.
Butler and backers said the bill represents a compromise that governs only the largest facilities while preserving local authority to review projects. After several procedural votes and the formal third-reading vote, the House recorded a constitutional majority and the measure passed.
What happens next: The bill as amended will go to the Senate or, if passed there, to the governor for signature; staff and utilities will need to implement the new reporting and permitting steps described in the amendment.
Ending note: Supporters framed the measure as a balance between encouraging economic development and protecting residential ratepayers; critics said the exceptions and thresholds mean further work may be needed to ensure transparency and local oversight.
