From Watts Up With That?

By Todd Snitchler

Electricity demand is rising for the first time in decades as data centers are built, manufacturing is reshored, and electrification increases. As White House National Energy Dominance Council officials explained at the Electric Power Supply Association’s annual summit, President Donald Trump and his administration are leading efforts to keep electricity prices affordable.

Most recently, President Trump and seven of the country’s largest tech companies signed the Ratepayer Protection Pledge to ensure that data centers pay for their own electricity costs and protect Americans from electricity price increases due to data center demand. Despite the administration’s efforts, some electric utilities in the mid-Atlantic are threatening to undermine the core principle of the pledge and shift the risk of building new generation onto captive customers.

In the 1990s, electricity markets across the country turned to competition, allowing independent power producers to compete in a marketplace that rewards the cheapest and most efficient power plants.

Some utilities, like Exelon, want to re-establish monopoly systems where they own and operate the power plants that generate electricity, the long-distance transmission lines, and the local distribution infrastructure. Under this model, utilities would build generation with guaranteed returns and shift construction risk, cost overruns, and performance failures directly onto ratepayers. Unlike a monopoly system, competitive markets put the risk of investment on the power producers and their investors, not the end users.

If power demand is rising so quickly, why aren’t utilities already building?

Utilities in competitive markets can still build generation today, they just have to do it competitively and without guaranteed returns. Consider National Grid Ventures’ recent announcement in New York. Despite being a major electric utility provider, its competitive affiliate, National Grid Ventures, is pursuing generation projects through competitive channels, accepting market risk rather than demanding ratepayer guarantees. New York and Governor Kathy Hochul have also been tackling affordability concerns by holding utilities accountable. Last month, Hochul moved to block Con Edison’s proposed rate increase and directed regulators to audit utility salaries across the state. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro also acknowledged that utilities lack public accountability, and transparency while making billions of dollars through guaranteed returns. 

Utilities’ own load forecasts show surging power demand, and their supporters argue that capacity markets are “loudly” signaling scarcity. If utilities are so confident in their own predictions, why are they not building generation already?

The answer is simple: utilities want the upside without the risk. They seek guaranteed cost recovery regardless of whether their projects succeed, whether costs spiral, or whether the forecasted demand materializes. Competitive power suppliers, by contrast, put their own capital on the line. If they build inefficiently or misjudge the market, investors—not ratepayers—absorb the losses, shielding customers from higher bills.

Utilities may also be exaggerating their own forecasts to increase profits. After Ohio introduced a new method of forecasting  data center demand, AEP Ohio’s “speculative data center queue” dropped from 30,000 MW to 5,642 MW of load when “substantial financial commitments” were required. Did 81% of projected demand evaporate overnight, or are utilities being less than diligent with their public projections? You be the judge.

Virginia is a clear counterexample

Exelon and other utilities have argued that returning to monopoly generation is needed to meet the growing demand, but that’s far from reality. If monopoly-owned generation was the clear answer to rising demand, one would expect that Virginia’s monopoly system has the power it needs to meet data center demand. Instead, Virginia is one of the top electricity importers in the country, relying heavily on power generated in states with competitive generation. 

Ensuring that the grid remains reliable is essential, and one of the ways that this is done is through capacity costs where power plants are paid to ensure they can deliver when electricity is needed. Virginia ratepayers face some of the highest capacity costs in the mid-Atlantic. In 2025 and 2026, capacity prices in Dominion’s service territory was 64% higher than the rest of the mid-Atlantic’s grid operator, PJM. When PJM’s capacity prices were near record lows, Appalachian Power’s capacity costs were more than 1,000% higher than the rest of the mid-Atlantic’s.

If monopoly generation is so much better at meeting demand efficiently and affordably, why would a state like Virginia have to import nearly a third of its power while paying significantly higher capacity prices?

Competition protects customers

Competitive markets have consistently delivered lower costs, faster innovation, and greater accountability than monopoly utility generation. Market participants respond to price signals, invest their own capital, and compete to serve customers efficiently.

Policymakers should resist calls to turn back the clock. Competition, not monopolies, will help the Trump administration protect customers from the costs of new energy infrastructure.

Todd Snitchler is President and CEO of the Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA).

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.