HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — As outrage spreads over energy-hungry data centerspoliticians from President Donald Trump to local lawmakers have found rare bipartisan agreement over insisting that tech companies — and not regular people — must foot the bill for the exorbitant amount of electricity required for artificial intelligence.

But that might be where the agreement ends.

The price of powering data centers has become deeply intertwined with concerns over the cost of living, a dominant issue in the upcoming midterm elections that will determine control of Congress and governors’ offices.

Some efforts to address the challenge may be coming too late, with energy costs on the rise. And even though tech giants are pledging to pay their “fair share,” there’s little consensus on what that means.

“‘Fair share’ is a pretty squishy term, and so it’s something that the industry likes to say because ‘fair’ can mean different things to different people,” said Ari Peskoe, who directs the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard University.

It’s a shift from last year, when states worked to woo massive data center projects and Trump directed his administration to do everything it could to get them electricity. Now there’s a backlash as towns fight data center projects and some utilities’ electricity bills have risen quickly.

Anger over the issue has already had electoral consequenceswith Democrats ousting two Republicans from Georgia’s utility regulatory commission in November.

“Voters are already connecting the experience of these facilities with their electricity costs and they’re going to increasingly want to know how government is going to navigate that,” said Christopher Borick, a pollster and director of the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion.

Energy race stokes concerns

Data centers are sprouting across the U.S., as tech giants scramble to meet worldwide demand for chatbots and other generative AI products that require large amounts of computing power to train and operate.

The buildings look like giant warehouses, some dwarfing the footprints of factories and stadiums. Some need more power than a small city, more than any utility has ever supplied to a single user, setting off a race to build more power plants.

The demand for electricity can have a ripple effect that raises prices for everyone else. For example, if utilities build more power plants or transmission lines to serve them, the cost can be spread across all ratepayers.

Concerns have dovetailed with broader questions about the cost of living, as well as fears about the powerful influence of tech companies and the impact of artificial intelligence.

Trump continues to embrace artificial intelligence as a top economic and national security priority, although he seemed to acknowledge the backlash last month by posting on social media that data centers “must ‘pay their own way.’”

At other times, he has brushed concerns aside, declaring that tech giants are building their own power plants, and Energy Secretary Chris Wright contends that data centers don’t inflate electricity bills — disputing what consumer advocates and independent analysts say.

States moving to regulate

Some states and utilities have started to identify ways to get data centers to pay for their costs.

They’ve required tech companies to buy electricity in long-term contracts, pay for the power plants and transmission upgrades they need and make big down payments in case they go belly-up or decide later they don’t need as much electricity.

But it might be more complicated than that. Those rules can’t fix the short-term problem of ravenous demand for electricity that is outpacing the speed of power plant construction, analysts say.

“What do you do when Big Tech, because of the very profitable nature of these data centers, can simply outbid grandma for power in the short run?” Abe Silverman, a former utility regulatory lawyer and an energy researcher at Johns Hopkins University. “That is, I think, going to be the real challenge.”

Some consumer advocates say tech companies’ fair share should also include the rising cost of electricity, grid equipment or natural gas that’s driven by their demand.

In Oregon, which passed a law to protect smaller ratepayers from data centers’ power costs, a consumer advocacy group is jousting with the state’s largest utility, Portland General Electric, over its plan on how to do that.

Meanwhile, consumer advocates in various states — including Indiana, Georgia and Missouri — are warning that utilities could foist the cost of data center-driven buildouts onto regular ratepayers there.

Pushback from lawmakers, governors

Utilities have pledged to ensure electric rates are fair. But in some places it may be too late.

For instance, in the mid-Atlantic grid territory from New Jersey to Illinois, consumer advocates and analysts have pegged billions of dollars in rate increases hitting the bills of regular Americans on data center demand.

Legislation, meanwhile, is flooding into Congress and statehouses to regulate data centers.

Democrats’ bills in Congress await Republican cosponsors, while lawmakers in a number of states are floating moratoriums on new data centers, drafting rules for regulators to shield regular ratepayers and targeting data center tax breaks and utility profits.

Governors — including some who worked to recruit data centers to their states — are increasingly talking tough.

Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat running for reelection this year, wants to impose a penny-a-gallon water fee on data centers and get rid of the sales tax exemption there that most states offer data centers. She called it a $38 million “corporate handout.”

“It’s time we make the booming data center industry work for the people of our state, rather than the other way around,” she said in her state-of-the-state address.

Blame for rising energy costs

Energy costs are projected to keep rising in 2026.

Republicans in Washington are pointing the finger at liberal state energy policies that favor renewable energy, suggesting they have driven up transmission costs and frayed supply by blocking fossil fuels.

“Americans are not paying higher prices because of data centers. There’s a perception there, and I get the perception, but it’s not actually true,” said Wright, Trump’s energy secretary, at a news conference earlier this month.

The struggle to assign blame was on display last week at a four-hour U.S. House subcommittee hearing with members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Republicans encouraged FERC members to speed up natural gas pipeline construction while Democrats defended renewable energy and urged FERC to limit utility profits and protect residential ratepayers from data center costs.

FERC’s chair, Laura Swett, told Rep. Greg Landsman, D-Ohio, that she believes data center operators are willing to cover their costs and understand that it’s important to have community support.

“That’s not been our experience,” Landsman responded, saying projects in his district are getting tax breaks, sidestepping community opposition and costing people money. “Ultimately, I think we have to get to a place where they pay everything.”

___

Follow Marc Levy on X at: https://x.com/timelywriter

The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday revoked its own 2009 “endangerment finding,” a scientific conclusion that for 16 years has been the central basis for regulating planet-warming emissions from power plants, vehicles and other sources.

The finding itself is straightforward: Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases — caused by burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas — endanger public health and welfare.

It was adopted after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases are air pollutants that can be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

The Trump administration says the finding hurts industry and the economy and that the Obama and Biden administrations twisted science to determine that greenhouse gases are a public health risk.

Environmentalists say those gases are a clear threat because climate change worsens weather disasters such as floods, heat waves and drought.

Here’s what to know:

How has the endangerment finding been used?

Since taking effect in 2010, during President Barack Obama’s first term, the endangerment finding has been the legal underpinning for new regulations targeting emissions from vehicles, oil and gas facilities and large industries, including power plants.

The EPA also determined that greenhouse gas emissions from some aircraft endanger health and welfare, setting the stage for future regulations.

Under President Donald Trump, the Department of Energy has suggested that climate models used by scientists to predict warming have overreached, that long-term trends for disasters generally don’t show much change and that climate has little impact on the economy.

Why does it matter?

Climate scientists warn that overturning the endangerment finding undermines decades of scientific progress and damages the credibility of U.S. institutions tasked with protecting the environment.

More importantly, scientists say rising global temperatures — the hottest years on record have all occurred since 2009 — cause more extreme weather that endangers people and causes billions of dollars in damage from more frequent and severe heat waves, wildfires, droughts and catastrophic flooding from more-intense storms.

The EPA action repeals all greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and trucks, but experts say it could trigger a broader undoing of climate regulations for stationary sources such as power plants and oil and gas facilities. It also could prevent future administrations from proposing rules to address global warming because they would have to restart the scientific and legal process to establish a new endangerment finding, which could take years and face legal challenges, said David Doniger, a climate expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

What happens next?

Environmental groups are sure to challenge the revocation in court.

So far, federal courts have repeatedly rejected legal challenges to the finding, including a 2023 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

___

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* At the deadline: “The White House spent the week projecting a willingness to negotiate over immigration enforcement policies while drawing a firm line against the central reforms Democrats say are needed to reach a deal to fund the Department of Homeland Security — a posture that all but guarantees a partial government shutdown this weekend.”

* U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Todd Lyons acknowledged evidence of ICE agents allegedly making “untruthful statements” under oath: “Federal authorities have opened a criminal probe into whether two immigration officers lied under oath about a shooting in Minneapolis last month, as all charges were dropped against two Venezuelan men.”

* On a related note, the latest on Marimar Martinez: “Federal prosecutors are conducting a criminal investigation into the Border Patrol agent accused of shooting a woman five times in Chicago in October, according to the woman’s lawyer.”

* Inching closer to another military offensive: “President Donald Trump said Friday that he decided to move a second aircraft carrier into the Middle East as he presses Iran to make a deal over its nuclear program. The USS Gerald R. Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier, is being sent from the Caribbean Sea to the Mideast to join other warships and military assets the U.S. has built up in the region.”

* A step in the right direction on the consumer price index: “The cost of goods and services rose at a slower annual rate than expected in January, providing hope that the nagging U.S. inflation problem could be starting to ease.”

* Don Lemon’s plea: “Journalist Don Lemon pleaded not guilty Friday in federal court in Minnesota to charges stemming from his presence at a church protest against the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.”

* Warehouses for human beings: “U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement expects to spend $38.3 billion on its plan to acquire warehouses across the country and retrofit them into immigrant detention centers that can hold tens of thousands of immigrants, according to agency documents provided to New Hampshire’s governor and published on the state’s website Thursday.”

* The offensive against blue states keeps failing in court: “A federal judge in Illinois on Thursday blocked the Trump administration’s plan to claw back $600 million in public health funds from four states led by Democrats, amid a wider effort by the federal government to pull funding from blue states.”

* If you’re looking for a pardon, it pays to be a celebrity: “President Donald Trump has pardoned five prominent former NFL players, including members of the pro football and college football halls of fame, for a variety of offenses.”

* The problem isn’t just that the crisis is getting worse, it’s that the crisis is getting worse faster: “According to a Washington Post analysis, the fastest warming rate on record occurred in the last 30 years. The Post used a dataset from NASA to analyze global average surface temperatures from 1880 to 2025. … Those data — combined with the last few years of record heat — have convinced many researchers that the world is seeing a decisive shift in how temperatures are rising.”

Have a safe weekend.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”