Who Pays for the Power?

Author: Ericson Tua’one, Chief Executive July 15, 2026 | Power, Data Centers

A data center beside a power plant sounds like a straightforward arrangement.

The plant makes electricity. The data center needs it. Put them next to each other and connect the two.

In Pennsylvania, that arrangement became a federal regulatory dispute.

In November 2024, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rejected a proposed amendment to an interconnection agreement at the Susquehanna nuclear plant. The amendment would have increased the permitted co-located data center load from 300 megawatts to 480 megawatts. FERC’s November 2024 order records the proposal and the decision.

The argument went beyond the wire between the buildings.

Other utilities raised concerns about costs shifting to their customers. Susquehanna disputed those claims. The parties disagreed about which grid services the arrangement used and what it should pay for.

The rejection was not a finding that every co-located data center shifts costs. FERC’s decision centered on the justification for the proposed departures from the standard interconnection agreement. The disputed cost estimates were not established as proven losses to consumers.

Putting a data center beside a power plant had not settled its obligations to the system around it.

That is a lesson worth bringing into Utah’s development decisions. It is not a claim that Pennsylvania’s rules govern Utah.

The bill beyond the building When a large campus is announced, attention goes to the site, the buildings, and the investment.

I want the power obligations on the table at the same time.

Which facilities must be built? Who owns them? Who maintains them? What happens if the customer requests more capacity than it eventually uses?

Those questions belong beside the development budget.

Utah’s large-load statute defines incremental costs broadly. They include the design, engineering, procurement, and construction necessary to provide service, along with the long-term operation and maintenance of large-load facilities for the applicable contract term.

The cost does not stop when the switch is thrown.

An owner needs to understand what it takes to reach that day and what remains its responsibility afterward.

A neighbor deserves an answer to a simpler question: Will any of this show up on my bill?

Utah has drawn a line Utah’s SB 132 established a large-load service framework effective May 7, 2025. It covers qualifying requests for new service expected to reach at least 100 megawatts within five years of the requested start date. It also covers qualifying requests to increase an existing customer’s total service level by at least 100 megawatts within five years.

That is a legal threshold, not a claim that every data center uses that much electricity. The framework applies to defined customers and service arrangements, not every utility or commercial project in Utah.

Under the statute, large-load customers must pay the just and reasonable incremental costs necessary to receive service. For large-load contracts requiring commission approval, existing customers must not bear costs justly and reasonably attributable to serving the large-load customer. The law also requires separate accounting for the associated investments, revenues, and expenses.

Transmission cost allocation remains subject to applicable federal law and FERC requirements. State protections do not erase that federal authority.

Those protections should shape the discussion from the beginning.

I would not ask a town to accept “the project pays its own way” as the entire explanation. Show which costs belong to the project. Show how they are recovered. Explain what happens if the development changes.

A promise at a public meeting needs support in the service agreement.

A deadline is not a delivery date Another number needs careful handling: 90 days.

Before that number moves from a legal summary into a construction schedule, I want to know what starts the clock and what happens when it stops.

Under the 2025 statute, utility evaluations follow scheduled processing windows. The utility must begin processing requests by April 1 or October 1, depending on when they are received. It is not required to start an evaluation until the customer supplies the necessary information and pays applicable fees.

Once the evaluation begins, it must be completed as soon as reasonably practicable, but within six months. A written service proposal follows within 15 business days of completion. The proposal must address estimated costs, required improvements, and the estimated timeline for service.

A separate provision addresses the failure to reach a large-load contract within 90 days after the customer receives the evaluation, unless the parties agree to a longer period. Under specified conditions, that opens a route to an alternative generation provider. It is not a promise to energize a campus in 90 days.

The distinction is practical.

An evaluation produces information. A contract assigns obligations. Construction delivers facilities.

I would keep those dates on separate lines.

Before an owner commits to an opening date, I want the schedule to distinguish between an expected response, an executed agreement, and usable power.

What happens when your plant stops? The Pennsylvania dispute is a reminder that location alone does not define a project’s relationship with the grid.

The same caution applies to “behind the meter.”

Before I accept that phrase as an answer, I want to understand the connection.

Does the facility operate independently? Does it remain connected to the utility? Does it expect utility service when its own generation is unavailable?

Utah’s framework distinguishes connected generation systems from closed private generation systems. A closed system is defined as operating independently of utility transmission and serving qualifying customers through a direct connection. Connecting it to the grid or obtaining utility services brings additional statutory and contractual requirements.

These statutory categories are not interchangeable with the broad commercial phrase “behind the meter.”

The law also says a qualified utility is not required to provide backup power to a covered large-load customer except as explicitly provided in a large-load contract.

That is the question I would ask across the table: When your generator stops, what happens next?

If the answer is “the grid takes over,” show the agreement.

If the answer is “we reduce operations,” identify which operations can stop and what must remain running.

If fuel delivery is interrupted, explain the response.

The normal operating day is only part of the design.

Follow the equipment A power strategy eventually becomes a delivery plan.

That is where I would bring the engineer, utility, equipment suppliers, and construction team together.

For utility service, I want the required upgrades identified and the responsibilities understood.

For on-site generation, I want equipment selected against the actual operating requirement. I want the fuel plan reviewed alongside it.

For either route, I would ask:

Which equipment has a firm delivery commitment?

What does the quoted delivery date include?

Who installs, tests, and commissions it?

Which approvals must be in place first?

What work can proceed while other items remain unresolved?

“Equipment ordered” is not the same milestone as “power available.”

Before using a delivery date in the financial model, I would ask the team to account for installation, protection testing, commissioning, and permission to operate.

I would also separate the first phase from the eventual campus.

What must operate on opening day? What can be added later? Which early decisions would make expansion harder?

Those answers give the owner something useful to compare.

Compare the job, not the label I would not choose utility service simply because it is familiar.

I would not choose dedicated generation simply because someone calls it faster.

Give both alternatives the same assignment: the same initial load, operating hours, required service date, and tolerance for interruptions.

Then compare what each can support.

Utah’s framework places obligations on large-scale generation providers as well. These include registration and applicable requirements concerning technical and financial qualifications, permits, and qualifying generation resources. Arrangements using transmission require their own studies and service provisions.

Private generation is a route to evaluate. It is not an exemption from doing the work.

The lowest electricity price is not enough to make the decision. Neither is the earliest date in a presentation.

I want to know what is included, what remains uncertain, and who carries each obligation.

Give the town a clear answer In my last post, I asked what stays on when the grid goes down.

This question comes next: Who pays for the power we are asking the system to deliver?

At Ber Wilson, I want the site plan, power plan, and construction schedule reviewed together. The owner should understand the dependencies while there is still room to change the project.

The town should understand its position before it is asked to support it.

That conversation does not need inflated investment figures or promises that nobody’s bill will ever change. It needs a clear account of what the project requires and what the agreements assign to it.

Before a major load moves forward, I want six answers:

What does the first phase actually need?

Which facilities and costs are attributable to serving it?

What service has been offered in writing?

What happens when the primary supply is unavailable?

Which equipment, approvals, and construction steps control the service date?

Who remains responsible if the project expands, slows down, or closes?

The person opening an electric bill should not have to unravel a development agreement to understand their exposure.

The owner should not have to finish a building to discover that the power plan was incomplete.

Put the obligations beside the drawings. Settle them while the team can still make a different choice.

Bring the load and the date Planning a data center or industrial campus? Ask Ber Wilson about a speed-to-power briefing.

Bring the site location, phased demand, target service date, and available utility correspondence. We can discuss utility service and dedicated generation, identify unresolved questions, and determine whether a scoped feasibility review is the right next step.

Contact Ber Wilson

info@berwilson.com