Will Data Centers Pay More for Energy in PA?

Pennsylvania is quietly moving toward a policy decision that could reshape where hyperscalers and colocation operators choose to plant their next facility. State Representative Frank Burns (D) has introduced legislation requiring the regulated utility sector to establish a separate rate class specifically for major energy users — with data centers squarely in the crosshairs.

It sounds like routine utility regulation. It isn't.

The Bill and What It Actually Does

Rep. Burns' proposal targets the fundamental way Pennsylvania utilities price electricity for their largest customers. Right now, high-volume commercial and industrial users — including data centers — generally access electricity under the same broad rate structures as other large commercial accounts. The Burns bill would carve out a distinct rate tier for major energy consumers, effectively giving utilities the authority (and arguably the mandate) to price that load differently.

The core logic is straightforward: if you're pulling grid resources at a scale that strains infrastructure, you should bear more of that cost — not spread it across ratepayers who run a warehouse or a hospital.

The policy context matters here. Pennsylvania's grid, served primarily through PJM Interconnection — the largest competitive wholesale electricity market in the country — is already under significant strain from the AI-driven data center boom. PJM has flagged load growth projections that would have seemed implausible five years ago. New data center campuses are requesting interconnection at a rate that's forcing queue reforms across the region. Burns' bill is, in part, a legislative response to that pressure landing on Pennsylvania's distribution utilities and their existing customers.

What This Means for Data Center Operating Costs

Electricity is not just a line item for data centers — it *is* the business. Power typically accounts for 40% to 60% of a hyperscale facility's total operating expenditure. A purpose-built 100 MW campus pulling power at a capacity factor north of 85% will consume roughly 744,000 MWh annually. At Pennsylvania's current average commercial rate of around $0.10–$0.12 per kWh, that's $74–$89 million per year in electricity spend before any rate restructuring.

A separate — and almost certainly higher — rate class for major energy users could add material cost to that figure. Even a 10% rate premium on a facility of that scale translates to $7–$9 million in additional annual operating expense. That's not catastrophic for a hyperscaler with a multi-billion-dollar campus investment already sunk, but it absolutely changes the pencil-out math for a developer evaluating Pennsylvania against competing markets.

Site selection for data centers is deeply sensitive to long-term energy cost certainty — operators model electricity expenses over 20-year horizons, and regulatory risk is priced in from day one.

For colocation providers and smaller operators, the exposure is proportionally similar, but the tolerance for margin compression is much lower. A 5% shift in power costs at a 20 MW colo facility can swing EBITDA meaningfully in a sector where margins are already under pressure from hyperscaler competition.

Who Gets Caught in the Net

The phrase "major energy users" will require precise statutory definition — and that definition is where the real fight will happen. Thresholds matter enormously. If the bill defines "major" at, say, 1 MW of peak demand, a huge swath of commercial and light industrial users gets swept in alongside AI training clusters. Set it at 25 MW, and you're essentially targeting large-scale data centers and a handful of industrial operations.

Beyond data centers, other stakeholders have skin in this game. Advanced manufacturers, semiconductor fabs, and large logistics operations with significant refrigeration loads could all find themselves in a newly expensive rate class. Pennsylvania's industrial base — still substantial in the western and central parts of the state — would be watching this closely.

Utilities, counterintuitively, have a complicated relationship with this kind of legislation. On one hand, a separate rate class gives them pricing flexibility and cost-recovery certainty for grid upgrades serving high-density load. On the other, major energy users are often the customers utilities actively compete to attract, and rate discrimination risks driving that load to neighboring states. PPL Electric and PECO, the state's major investor-owned utilities, will likely engage aggressively in the regulatory proceedings that follow any legislative passage.

How Pennsylvania Compares to the Rest of the Country

Pennsylvania wouldn't be inventing anything here. Several states have moved toward differentiated rate structures for large energy consumers, with mixed results.

Virginia — which hosts the densest concentration of data center infrastructure on Earth in Northern Virginia's "Data Center Alley" — has grappled with similar dynamics. Dominion Energy has implemented standby charges and demand-based riders that effectively create a premium cost environment for large commercial loads, though Virginia has also paired those costs with aggressive transmission investment. The result: operators grumble, but they keep building because the ecosystem advantages outweigh the rate friction.

Texas takes the opposite approach. ERCOT's deregulated market structure means large users can negotiate bilateral power purchase agreements directly, often accessing some of the cheapest wholesale electricity in the country. That market flexibility has made Texas one of the fastest-growing data center markets in the U.S., with the Dallas-Fort Worth metro emerging as a genuine alternative to Northern Virginia. Pennsylvania's regulated utility model makes that kind of structural flexibility harder to replicate, which is precisely why the Burns bill feels like a blunt instrument to industry observers.

Georgia, meanwhile, has used its regulated utility structure — dominated by Georgia Power — as a feature rather than a bug, offering large load customers custom economic development rates in exchange for job commitments. It's a different philosophy: attract the load, then negotiate the cost structure. Pennsylvania could adopt a similar carrot-and-stick approach, but the Burns bill as described leans heavily toward the stick.

What Happens Next — and What Investors Should Watch

Bills targeting utility rate structures rarely move quickly, and this one will face significant opposition from the data center industry, which has become increasingly sophisticated in its statehouse engagement. Organizations like CBRE, Equinix, and the broader data center trade community have built robust policy teams precisely to combat legislation like this in its early stages.

The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) will be central to any implementation — the legislature can authorize a new rate class, but the PUC sets the actual tariff structure through a formal rulemaking process with its own public comment periods and evidentiary hearings. That process takes time, typically 12–18 months from legislative passage to effective tariff. Operators currently under development in Pennsylvania have a window to evaluate their exposure.

For real estate investors and infrastructure developers evaluating Pennsylvania assets, the near-term signal isn't necessarily "avoid" — it's "underwrite carefully." Projects already in interconnection queues with signed utility agreements may be insulated. Greenfield development in the state, however, should model for a range of rate scenarios, including a meaningful premium for high-density load.

The smarter long-term question isn't whether Pennsylvania will increase costs for data centers — it's whether the state will pair that policy with infrastructure investment that makes those costs worth paying.

Grid reliability, fiber diversity, water access for cooling, and proximity to major population centers are all genuine Pennsylvania advantages. If the Burns bill evolves into a broader energy policy framework that pairs cost recovery from large users with accelerated transmission buildout, it could actually strengthen the state's position as a data center market. If it's implemented as a simple rate increase without corresponding grid investment, operators will vote with their development pipelines — and neighboring Ohio, Virginia, and New Jersey will benefit.

Watch the stakeholder comment process at the PUC. Watch whether the final bill includes any carve-outs for economic development zones or renewable energy purchasers. And watch whether Pennsylvania's grid investment plans keep pace with the load growth it's clearly expecting to attract. Those three signals will tell you more about where this policy lands than the bill text itself.

Call to Action: Stay informed about the latest developments in energy policies affecting data centers. Explore more at InfraSale Marketplace.

[INTERNAL LINK: energy policies]

[INTERNAL LINK: data center market trends]

[INTERNAL LINK: utility rate structures]