Regarding the control of electricity costs for AI infrastructure after the midterm elections, the partisan differences may not be as significant as many believe. Who should pay for the electricity for data centers? The debate isn't about direction, but rather the extent of the impact. Further upgrades to the Ratepayer Protection Act (H.R. 9340), passed by the House in mid-September, may form the basic framework for electricity regulation after the elections. On September 16, the House passed the Ratepayer Protection Act by an overwhelming majority of 417 to 3, an unusual result in Congress, with almost all Republicans and the vast majority of Democrats voting in favor. The bill, co-introduced by Colorado Republican Representative Gabe Evans and Florida Democratic Representative Kathy Castor, aims to address the cost pressures on the power grid caused by the rapid expansion of AI data centers, attempting to make these high-load users bear the costs of power generation, transmission, and distribution upgrades they generate, rather than passing those costs on to ordinary households and small businesses. The bill amends the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act of 1978 (PURPA) by adding a "high-load customer standard" to Section 111(d). High-load customers are defined as non-residential users with electricity demand of 100 megawatts or more, a threshold explicitly targeting large data centers. If state utility regulators choose to adopt this standard, the rates charged to these users must be designed to fully recover all incremental upgrade costs required to serve them, including any costs incurred if customers terminate their agreements or stop purchasing electricity early. Furthermore, before any upgrades are undertaken, utility companies must require users to provide financial guarantees or contributions to cover these costs. However, the bill does not mandate that states adopt this standard. It only requires state regulators (and non-regulated utility companies) to begin considering the standard within one year of its enactment and to complete their review and make a decision within two years. After passing the House, the bill was quickly taken to the Senate by Ohio Republican Senator Jon Husted. Husted, who is slated to fill the vacancy left by JD Vance in 2025, faces a tough special election against former Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown. Ohio's data center issue is highly sensitive. Brown and his allies have portrayed Husted as a key figure in driving data center expansion, while Husted is attempting to demonstrate his commitment to protecting electricity prices by pushing through this bill. However, the bill is blocked in the Senate. Ostensibly, Senate Democrats argue that it only allows states to consider the bill but doesn't make it mandatory. Another reason is that Democrats don't want to give Husted a chance to run for re-election. Democrats almost unanimously supported the bill in the House but collectively blocked it in the Senate, essentially "not wanting to give their opponents points before the election." Actually, there are three bills concerning electricity pricing and regulation. The Ratepayer Protection Act has gone the furthest, passing the House, while the other two are still in the committee stage. The Ratepayer Protection Act "gives states a direction, letting them decide for themselves"; the GRID Savings Act "directly stipulates who pays and how to guarantee"; and the Power for the People Act "governs the federal government to manage queues and some costs, while using priority and rate design to guide data centers to bring their own clean resources and assume more obligations." These three bills essentially outline the main direction of future US regulation of electricity costs for AI infrastructure, especially given a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. The most widely agreed-upon bottom line is the principle represented by the Ratepayer Protection Act: "costs should not be passed on to ordinary users." This principle is accepted by both parties. However, if the Democrats control Congress, the final framework will likely go beyond this bottom line, incorporating elements from the other two bills. Based on the three bills, the possible future regulatory framework is roughly as follows: 1) Cost internalization becomes a hard requirement, not just a "consideration." The logic most likely to be strengthened is that of the GRID Savings Act: high-load users must bear the costs of grid connection and related infrastructure directly caused by their loads and provide financial guarantees. The federal government sets rules at the transmission level through the FERC, while states cooperate at the retail rate level. This is the part where a middle ground can be found between the two parties. 2) A two-tiered structure of federal and state governments. Federal government (FERC): regulates interstate transmission access, cost allocation rules, and some queueing or research processes. States: Continue to lead the design of retail electricity prices and specific rates, but will be required to establish dedicated rate categories or equivalent mechanisms for data centers (minimum demand charges, longer contracts, higher guarantees, etc.) to prevent sunk costs. 3) Possible Additional Conditions (More Obvious if Democrats Lead): The queuing priority and clean energy/flexibility guidelines of the Power for the People Act may not be entirely copied, but the idea of "priority access for those with their own resources or providing flexibility" is attractive because it addresses both cost and reliability issues. A Complete Ban or Strict Industry Policy: None of the three bills advocate a halt to data center construction. Even if Democrats control both houses, the mainstream approach remains "buildable, but must pay and assume more obligations," rather than directly limiting scale. Extreme halting or quota schemes are not currently included in these mainstream legislative texts. Therefore, even if Democrats win both houses, the most likely scenario is: based on the consensus of the Ratepayer Protection Act, upgrading "must consider" to more mandatory cost allocation and financial guarantees (absorbing the GRID Savings Act), while possibly adding requirements for dedicated rate categories for data centers, and establishing certain queuing or research rules at the federal level. Clean energy priorities and labor provisions may be used as bargaining chips, but they will be more moderate than the original Power for the People Act. The final text will be stricter than the current House version, but it will not completely copy any Democratic bill. The message conveyed by these bills is quite clear: the electricity cost of AI data centers can no longer be easily socialized. Regardless of the power structure after the election, the direction of regulation will be towards "whoever uses the electricity, whoever initiates the upgrade, and whoever bears the corresponding cost," with the main differences being the degree of enforcement and the number of additional conditions. This article is sponsored by @bitget_zh, "Bitget Buy US Stocks: Instant Entry, Smooth Trading"