Electricity politics has shifted from “how do we build more?” to “who do we wall off?” This week delivered two variations of the same instinct: insulate households from data centers. Separate the load. Reassign the costs. Promise voters they won’t feel it.

Whether that instinct actually lowers prices is another question.

Senators Josh Hawley and Richard Blumenthal introduced the Guaranteeing Rate Insulation from Data Centers (GRID) Act, a bipartisan bill aimed squarely at AI-driven load growth. The bill would require:

The Zero Rate Effect Certificate is the hinge. DOE would evaluate interconnection costs, infrastructure impacts and rate effects. If a facility raises rates, no certificate. Operators could theoretically offset impacts through credits or direct payments. This is not incremental reform. It is structural separation. Hyperscalers would build their own systems or prove that they are harmless.

At the state level, Virginia is pursuing a more surgical version of the same political move.

An amendment to SB 253 would allow the State Corporation Commission to shift certain distribution and capacity auction costs onto Dominion’s large-load GS5 rate class… or largely data centers. Projected effects:

Dominion already requires 14-year contracts for customers above 25 MW with 85% minimum demand charges for transmission and distribution. This amendment reallocates short-term capacity pressure.

Why It Matters - These moves mark a shift from “who pays for new supply?” to “who is allowed to touch the grid at all?” The federal bill would effectively wall large loads off from shared infrastructure, while Virginia’s proposal keeps them on the system but reallocates capacity and distribution costs inside existing rate structures.

Grid Take - Demand growth is being treated as a political liability rather than an economic signal. When prices rise because supply is tight, the answer is to build more supply … not to carve out a villain class and pin the bill on them. Once rate design becomes a tool for punishing politically exposed industries, every large customer becomes a future target.

While Washington debates isolating hyperscalers, 24 states are moving in the opposite direction at the household level.

Lawmakers across the country are introducing bills to legalize plug-in “balcony solar” systems — small, wall-socket panels typically capped around 1,200 watts, retailing near $2,000, and capable of offsetting modest household load. Utah became the first state to authorize the systems last year in a unanimous vote. Germany already has more than 1 million registered “balcony power plants.”

The appeal is obvious: no permitting gauntlet, no $20,000 rooftop install, no waiting months for utility interconnection. Buy it. Plug it in. Offset a slice of your bill.

Utilities in Washington state have raised safety concerns. UL Solutions released preliminary certification criteria in December that may require additional wiring protections. Final standards are still being developed.

Why It Matters - If small-scale generation can coexist with the grid without destabilizing it, the intellectual case against larger parallel systems gets thinner. The real debate isn’t whether decentralization is possible — it’s how much regulators are willing to tolerate.

Grid Take - Markets tolerate experimentation better than centralized systems do. If people can plug in 1,200 watts without catastrophe, the argument that new supply must be routed exclusively through incumbent utilities starts to look more like protection than prudence.

President Trump issued an executive order directing the Department of Defense to enter long-term contracts with coal-fired plants to serve military installations. The Department of Energy will also award $175 million across six projects to extend the life of coal plants in states including West Virginia, Ohio, North Carolina and Kentucky.

Coal’s share of U.S. generation has fallen from roughly 50% in 2000 to about 17% in 2025, according to EIA data. The administration framed the move as a reliability play … “uninterrupted, on-demand baseload power” for defense facilities … particularly after recent winter storms.

Critics argue many of these units are uneconomic. A recent Grid Strategies analysis estimated that forcing certain coal plants to remain online could cost ratepayers more than $3 billion annually. Another analysis from Energy Innovation suggested 99% of U.S. coal plants cost more to run than replacing them with renewables.

Why It Matters - Reliability for defense infrastructure is a legitimate objective. The question is whether fuel selection by executive order is the most efficient way to secure it.

Grid Take - Reliability is an outcome, not a fuel type. If coal can compete on cost and performance, it will clear. If it cannot, mandating it converts a market signal into a political one … and politics rarely optimizes generation mix.

New York City adopted its 2025 energy code with heavy emphasis on electrification, stricter performance standards and tighter building efficiency requirements.

The updated code aligns with Local Law 97 goals and expands requirements for electric-ready infrastructure, heat pumps and building envelope performance. City officials describe it as a cost-saving, emissions-reducing modernization.

Why It Matters - Energy codes directly affect housing costs, commercial build timelines and grid load profiles. They are not marginal adjustments — they are structural constraints layered onto an already supply-tight system.

Grid Take - Efficiency gains are good. Micromanagement is not. When regulators dictate inputs rather than price outcomes, markets lose flexibility — and consumers often absorb the side effects.

Upgrade to Grid Brief Premium to get extra deep dives into energy issues all over the world.

We rely on word of mouth to grow. If you're enjoying this, don't forget to forward Grid Brief to your friends and ask them to subscribe!