Chris Van Hollen’s “Power for the People Act” Targets Big Tech—But Risks Higher Costs and Federal Overreach

By Michael Phillips | Thunder Report

Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) has rolled out yet another interventionist piece of legislation with his Power for the People Act, aimed at curbing rising electricity costs that Democrats claim are driven in part by the rapid expansion of big tech data centers. On the surface, the bill positions itself as a consumer protection measure—preventing everyday Americans from “footing the bill” for corporate energy demands. But a closer look reveals that this approach risks heavy-handed government overreach, misdiagnosed causation, and an unnecessary assault on one of the country’s most dynamic economic sectors.

At its core, Van Hollen’s proposal assumes that large technology companies and their sprawling data centers are responsible for driving up utility costs across the grid and that the answer is more federal regulatory power. The Power for the People Act would direct federal regulators and states to segregate data centers into special customer classes, force them to pay for transmission costs that, under current utility frameworks, are spread across all customers, and impose new mandates on how they connect to the grid.

There are several serious objections conservatives and free-market proponents should raise:

1. Misdiagnosing the Cause of Rising Energy Prices

Utility costs have risen for a variety of reasons in recent years: inflationary pressures on fuel and materials, supply chain bottlenecks, and energy policy decisions at the state and federal level. Singling out technology companies as the principal villains oversimplifies a complex market dynamic. Indeed, some industry analyses commissioned by the tech sector argue that data centers contribute to grid improvements and benefits that extend beyond their direct energy use.

2. Punishing Private Investment in Strategic Infrastructure

Data centers are foundational to America’s competitiveness in artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and digital services more broadly. These facilities represent billions of dollars in private capital investment and support high-wage employment. Instead of creating conditions that encourage continued technological leadership, the Power for the People Act effectively penalizes productive enterprises for their success, undermining incentives at a time when U.S. tech firms are competing globally. A better path would be to ensure cost transparency and negotiated local solutions—not heavy federal mandates that distort markets.

3. Expansion of Federal Power Under the Guise of ‘Fairness’

Van Hollen’s bill would empower federal agencies such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to dictate how states categorize and charge data centers for transmission upgrades. This is the very definition of Washington’s “one-size-fits-all” regulatory approach—eroding state flexibility and imposing federal classification schemes on diverse regional energy markets. Conservatives should be wary of empowering FERC to micromanage commercial energy arrangements that are better resolved through competitive markets and local utility commission oversight.

4. Ignoring Technological and Market Solutions

Rather than legislate punitive rate classes, policymakers should explore market-based solutions: incentivizing energy efficiency, promoting distributed generation (including private power purchase agreements), expanding grid capacity through competitive investment, and improving forecasting and grid management. These are reforms that encourage innovation, not punish success.

5. Risk of Chilling Future Investment

Policy uncertainty is a top concern for capital allocation. Passing legislation that signals hostility toward data-intensive industries could dissuade future investment in regions served by constrained grids. States and localities have more granular tools—zoning, negotiated community benefit agreements, and rate-making processes—that can balance growth with affordability without federal intrusion.

In sum, while rising utility costs are a real concern for families across America, Van Hollen’s Power for the People Act substitutes broad legislative authority for thoughtful, market-oriented solutions. Rather than saddling one sector of the economy with targeted regulatory burdens, a conservative alternative would promote energy market reforms that improve reliability, increase supply, and protect consumers without penalizing innovation or expanding Washington’s regulatory footprint.

Keep This Reporting Free

If this work matters to you, please consider supporting it.
Your contribution helps fund independent reporting across our entire network.

👉 Support the Journalism