Nearly one-third of the nation’s private sector workers are covered by paid leave programs as more states require employers to provide medical and family leave, according to a new analysis released this week.

Currently, the District of Columbia and 13 states have passed laws requiring paid leave for many workers, according to a report from the National Partnership for Women & Families, a nonprofit that advocates for reproductive rights, health and economic justice, and workplace equality.

“States have shifted the paradigm now that more than 46 million workers across the U.S. are covered by paid family and medical leave programs, pointing the way forward for the rest of the country,” Jessica Mason, senior policy analyst at the organization, said in a news release. 

The programs vary in design, but generally guarantee paychecks while workers take time off for illness or to care for a child or other loved one. They’re funded through employer and employee premiums similar to unemployment insurance or payroll taxes that cover a portion of employee wages when they take leave.

The report cites research showing multistate employers often respond to local paid sick leave laws by providing paid sick leave to their workers even in places without such requirements.

This year, Delaware, Maine and Minnesota began or planned to start offering benefits through new paid leave programs. And the report cites growing momentum in six more states: Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Virginia. If those states were to implement paid leave policies, 44% of workers nationwide would have access to paid family and medical leave, according to the analysis. 

In Virginia, lawmakers in both chambers have approved bills guaranteeing up to 12 weeks of paid family leave. While previous efforts were vetoed by former Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin, current Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger is expected to sign a bill once a final version makes it to her desk, the Virginia Mercury reported. 

In a January address to the legislature, Spanberger said that “being pro-business and being pro-worker are not mutually exclusive.”

“We can support business growth and invest in our workforce. We can attract new companies and protect workers. … That is why we will create a statewide paid family and medical leave program.” 

Virginia is projected to spend about $116.51 million in startup costs over the 2027 and 2028 fiscal years. By 2031, the program is expected to spend $2.1 billion per year in benefits — funded by payroll tax collections. 

Opponents frequently cite the costs of paid leave programs and the burdens they place on businesses. Last month, Virginia Republican state Del. Michael Webert said large corporations may be able to afford new costs and administrative burdens, but not smaller employers. 

“The impact will not fall evenly,” he said ahead of the House vote last month.

Across much of the Midwest and South, state laws prohibit local governments from requiring employers to provide paid sick leave. In 18 states, cities are effectively stripped of the power to enact their own labor protections.

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

Online prediction markets allow users to put money on the outcome of almost anything — this weekend’s NBA game between the Warriors and the Thunder, the next supreme leader of Iran, whether the government will confirm the existence of aliens.

But those markets have no state oversight and operate even in states that ban gambling.

The platforms are raising bipartisan alarms, especially related to sports gambling. As states have legalized sports betting in recent years, they’ve required legal sportsbooks to jump through multiple hoops — from age verification procedures to protections for gambling addiction to tax collections. Online prediction markets circumvent all those rules.

Platforms including Kalshi and Polymarket say they are offering contracts similar to commodity markets that speculate on the future price of corn or oil — not outright gambling. But a growing number of states are rejecting those justifications, arguing the platforms are offering a backdoor to skirt state gambling regulations, particularly on sports.

The issue has sparked action from state regulators, new legislation, and lawsuits from both states and prediction markets. Complicating matters are the federal government’s moves to block state regulation of prediction markets, which see more than $13 billion in transactions each month.

Most activity on those platforms revolves around sports. And in national ads, Kalshi even marketed itself as the first national legal sports betting platform — even though states approve and regulate sports gambling since a 2018 Supreme Court decision. In 11 states, sports gambling remains illegal.

“This is sports wagering. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably sports wagering, in this situation,” said Kentucky state Rep. Michael Meredith, a Republican.

Meredith, who sponsored a 2023 law that legalized sports betting in Kentucky, called for states to regulate prediction markets during a webinar hosted by the National Conference of State Legislatures. That organization, representing state legislators across the country, has urged Congress “to act swiftly to address the rapid growth of unregulated sports‑related event contracts.”

State leaders argue their longstanding authority to oversee gambling should allow states to regulate or ban prediction market platforms. But those companies maintain they are not beholden to state regulations.

“I think it’s very clear that this authority should be vested in our state governments,” Meredith said last month.

In New York, lawmakers are considering legislation that would ban prediction markets from offering contracts on sports events, in addition to natural disasters, acts of terrorism and deaths. In Nevada, where gambling and tourism are top economic drivers, regulators are involved in a protracted legal fight after the state sought to stop prediction market activity on sports.

“To me, this is clearly gambling,” Thomas Reeg, CEO of Caesars Entertainment, which operates casinos and sports betting, said during a company earnings call in January.

But states are also fighting an obscure federal agency seeking to protect the emerging marketplace. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates derivatives such as futures contracts on stocks, has asserted it has “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets and promised to fight state regulatory efforts in court.

The CTFC did not respond to Stateline’s request for comment. Neither did Kalshi or Polymarket, two of the leading prediction market companies.

A new wave of betting

Unless Congress passes legislation, experts say the courts will ultimately decide what role states can play in regulating prediction markets.

The standoff has led to litigation between the platforms and states in at least eight states, and officials in 11 states have sent cease and desist orders to prediction market companies, according to the American Gaming Association, an industry group representing casinos and sports books. A bipartisan group of attorneys general from 39 states and the District of Columbia recently urged a federal court to uphold state authority to regulate sports gambling.

The American Gaming Association says prediction markets should either get out of the sports betting business or follow the same regulations and rules that apply to sportsbooks such as DraftKings and FanDuel.

“They don’t want to pay the taxes, they don’t want to undergo the compliance and provide all of the consumer protections that are required by states of operators who operate legal sports betting,” said Tres York, the vice president of government relations for the association.

The organization estimates states have lost out on more than $570 million in sports gambling tax revenues since prediction markets began offering sports events contracts.

Many state leaders and experts are already concerned about the societal effects from the meteoric rise of sports gambling, which has transformed collegiate and professional sports, and the potential for manipulation by players.

“If you already have what I would call an epidemic of sports betting addiction in this country when you have regulated sports betting, imagine what it’s going to be like when you have essentially unregulated sports betting,” said Benjamin Schiffrin, director of securities policy at Better Markets, a nonprofit watchdog group advocating for consumer and investor financial protections.

The wide range of available bets also is raising alarms over election integrity and insider trading. In addition to individual elections, prediction markets have allowed wagers on the ouster of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and the timing of the U.S. strike on Iran. Last week, hundreds of thousands of dollars were bet the day before the Iranian strikes, and more than 100 accounts cashed in $10,000 or more from successful predictions, according to a New York Times analysis.

“It’s a huge change to all of a sudden allow betting on elections, and it really threatens the underpinnings of our democracy,” Schiffrin said. “It just seems like there’s tremendous potential for wrongdoing.”

On its website, Kalshi says it operates under a “strict regulatory framework” with a suite of market integrity, surveillance, financial safeguards, and anti-manipulation protections.

Federal-state conflict 

Citing what it called “an onslaught” of state litigation, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission last month filed a court brief underscoring its authority to regulate prediction markets.

“To those who seek to challenge our authority in this space, let me be clear: We will see you in court,” Commissioner Mike Selig said in a video posted on social media. Selig is the only member of the presidentially appointed commission, which currently has four vacancies.

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, a Republican, immediately vowed to oppose the federal agency and the prediction platforms in court. Gambling has been banned under the Utah Constitution since the state’s founding, and Cox posted on social media that prediction markets are “destroying the lives of families.”

Kalshi swiftly sued the governor and the state in federal court in anticipation of enforcement efforts and pending legislation in Salt Lake City. The company’s lawsuit cited the governor’s post and a column penned by Republican Attorney General Derek Brown explaining why he joined Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, a Democrat, “in urging Congress to address offshore gambling operations that disregard state law and target young Americans.”

Prediction market exchange Kalshi sues Utah over proposed prop betting ban

Utah Republican state Rep. Joseph Elison sponsored the legislation cited in Kalshi’s lawsuit. The bill, which has passed both chambers, would expand the state’s definition of gambling to include proposition betting — bets on the performance of an individual player or team that don’t necessarily affect the outcome of a competition. While Elison acknowledged the courts will ultimately determine the issue, he said prediction markets are essentially offering proposition betting without authorization.

”We’re 50 independent sovereigns that gave centralized government to the federal government to do certain things,” he told Stateline. “But the rest, we want those things to be under our purview. And this is one of those.”

The legal landscape 

In early rulings on the matter, courts have issued a mix of opinions: States have found initial success in state courts while results have been more mixed in federal courts, said Daniel Wallach, a gaming and sports gambling attorney tracking the issue.

But federal law has long affirmed state authority to oversee gambling, he said.

Despite attempts to cast transactions as investments, Wallach says courts will look at the substance of bets, which he said are almost indistinguishable from those made in state-regulated betting markets.

“The argument that this is investing rather than gambling is essentially elevating form over substance,” he said. “Plain and simple, this is wagering on the outcome of a sporting event.”

Wallach said state efforts such as cease and desist orders are counterproductive, as they essentially invite federal lawsuits from prediction market firms. He said states are better off pursuing gambling enforcement efforts in state courts, where several have won preliminary injunctions halting operations of the platforms temporarily.

For now, he said the federal agency has applied almost no scrutiny of the platforms, noting that the president’s family has a financial interest in the industry.

Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son, has a business interest in two of the largest online prediction markets, and the president’s social media platform Truth Social announced it would start its own prediction market, according to The New York Times.

Journalist Dustin Gouker, who authors newsletters on gambling and prediction markets, noted that the CFTC rules that currently regulate prediction markets were built for financial products — not gambling. He said prediction markets have moved into the gaming market because “nobody said no.”

“It’s a bit of a mess,” he said. “If we’re going to have betting in 50 states for everyone 18 and over, shouldn’t we have thought about that a little bit more?”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. 

Outrage erupted last month when Oklahoma City residents learned of plans to convert a vacant warehouse into an immigration processing facility.

Making matters worse was the secrecy of the federal government: City leaders received no communication from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement aside from a mandated disclosure related to historic preservation.

Planning a major development without city input is antithetical to the in-depth, sometimes arcane permitting, planning and zoning process in Oklahoma City. Mayor David Holt, a former Republican state senator, said those land use decisions are among the most crucial of any municipal government.

“For any entity to be able to open a detention center in our communities, potentially next to neighborhoods or schools, regardless of your views on immigration policy or enforcement, is very challenging, because that’s a very high-impact use, and that’s the kind of thing that we would expect to talk about,” he told Stateline.

Communities across the country are facing similar prospects as ICE undertakes a massive expansion fueled in large part by the record $45 billion approved for increased immigration detention by Congress last summer.

During President Donald Trump’s second term, ICE is holding a record number of detainees — more than 70,000 as of January — across its own facilities as well as in contracted local jails and private prisons. ICE documents from last week show plans for acquiring and renovating 16 processing sites that hold up to 1,500 people each and eight detention centers that hold up to 10,000 each, for a total capacity of 92,600 beds. The agency also has plans for some 150 new leases and office expansions across the country, Wired reported.

But ICE’s plans to convert industrial buildings — often warehouses — into new detention facilities have recently faced fierce opposition over humanitarian and economic concerns. From Utah to Texas to Georgia, local governments have sought to block these massive facilities. But with limited legal authority, city and state officials have turned to the court of public opinion to deter private developers and the federal government.

Holt, who is the president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, a nonpartisan organization representing the more than 1,400 leaders of cities with populations of 30,000 or more, said cities have little legal recourse over the ICE facilities.

“We all have a clear, unified position that really crosses party lines,” he said, “and then we also have a clear understanding of how limited our options are.”

Local leaders often cite the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause, which says federal laws supersede conflicting state laws. That leaves cities with limited influence over projects that could take industrial space off tax rolls, cause new strains on city services and raise serious humanitarian concerns given the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement, including the high-profile killings of two Americans in Minnesota.

Facing bipartisan opposition, the out-of-state owner of the Oklahoma City warehouse ultimately decided to end talks of selling or leasing its warehouse to the federal government.

Similar public pressure has proved effective in reversing plans in several other cities: In late January, a Canadian firm said it would not proceed with a planned sale of a Virginia warehouse after it faced calls for a boycott from Canadian politicians and businesses. In Mississippi, U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker announced the federal government would “look elsewhere” after he spoke with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who oversees ICE. Wicker, a Republican who said he supports immigration enforcement, echoed local economic concerns of a project planned in Byhalia.

Some officials have welcomed the new facilities: Missouri Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Alford has lobbied to land a detention and processing center in his district. And last week, a Maryland county approved a resolution expressing its “full support” for ICE, which is considering purchasing a warehouse there, despite local protests. But most communities have fought them.

Proposed Oklahoma City ICE facility is off the table

Neither DHS nor ICE responded to Stateline’s questions.

Holt said the discussion resembles other local development concerns where NIMBY — short for Not in My Backyard — is a common description of opponents.

“There are plenty of people who are very law-and-order and supporters of law enforcement who don’t want a jail next to their house,” he said. “That’s why it’s got such broad opposition: NIMBYism is the most powerful force sometimes in American politics and nobody wants a detention center next to their home, their business or their school.”

A political and legal fight

After learning that ICE planned to take over a vacant warehouse within its city limits, the Kansas City Council in January swiftly approved a five-year ban on nonmunicipal detention facilities.

Kansas City Council member Andrea Bough, who is also a private development attorney, said the move was both political and legal: The city wanted to send a clear signal opposing ICE facilities, but it also wants to exert its local authority over planning and zoning.

She acknowledged the legal hurdle posed by the supremacy clause, but said there was enough ambiguity over the city’s ability to regulate land use that it may take the issue to the courts.

“Some would say local building codes and zoning regulations do not apply to the federal government,” she said. “That’s something I think we would probably in this situation be willing to fight until we had clear guidance on that.”

Following weeks of pressure, the Kansas City firm that owns the 920,000-square-foot warehouse announced Thursday it was no longer “actively engaged with the U.S. Government or any other prospective purchaser,” the Kansas City Star reported.

Jackson County, which includes portions of Kansas City and the potential detention facility, is considering a similar ban. And across the state line, the Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas, is considering a similar two-year moratorium.

But there are clear limitations on cities’ ability to stop federal projects, said Nestor Davidson, a professor who teaches land use and local government law at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design.

“The federal government can assert immunity from certain state and local laws, including zoning, but it’s complicated, and there are nuances,” he said.

Still, Davidson said some case law has shown cities may have stronger legal footing for zoning rules that are broad and not directly targeted at specific federal government projects.

“I expect to see litigation,” he said. “I think you’re going to see these conversations play out as land use fights often do: both in a legal venue and in a political venue.”

Governments pressured to act

Kansas City’s moratorium has sparked interest among local activists who have pressured elected officials in other cities across the country to act. But many local officials are adamant that federal law ties their hands.

U.S. Reps. Maxwell Frost & Darren Soto tell Kristi Noem not to open ICE facility in Central Florida

In a legal opinion provided to the Orlando City Council in Florida, City Attorney Mayanne Downs rejected “suggestions of actions we can supposedly take,” including moratoriums or using zoning ordinances to block ICE detention centers.

“However well motivated these suggestions are, the law is very clear: ICE, as an agency of our federal government, ICE is immune from any local regulation that interferes in any way with its federal mandate,” Downs wrote to the mayor and city commissioners.

ICE is reportedly considering a new $100 million processing center in southeast Orlando.

The county commission in Orange County, which includes Orlando, discussed the issue last week after receiving similar legal advice. County Commissioner Nicole Wilson said the board is even more constrained because of a recent Florida law limiting certain local governments’ ability to regulate development through 2027.

After being advised against passing a moratorium, the board agreed with Wilson’s follow-up suggestion to draft a resolution expressing its opposition. That will be considered at a future meeting.

“It doesn’t sound like it has the teeth that a moratorium would have, but it essentially gives an awareness that we’ve established a position in opposition to this type of facility in Orange County,” Wilson told Stateline.

An attorney by trade, Wilson said the case law regarding federal projects largely centers on disputes about post offices, which she said is not an appropriate comparison to the massive detention centers currently contemplated.

“A post office has the same water consumption and sewage as probably a lot of other uses,” she said. “If you take a warehouse that was designed for 25,000 widgets and put 15,000 humans in it, you’ve got a very different set of local needs and services that are being used and being taxed and being burdened.”

Working with the feds

Communities have often opposed various other federal projects, such as federal courthouses. But the federal government generally takes the time to listen to local concerns and communicate building plans with communities, said Jason Klumb, a former regional administrator with the U.S. General Services Administration, which manages the federal government’s real estate.

“Generally, GSA has had kind of a good neighbor approach, understanding that they have requirements for federal facilities, and some of those facilities may not always be popular,” said Klumb, an Obama appointee.

But the federal government has not been shy about exerting its constitutional authority.

For example, late last month, GSA announced it would build a new $239 million federal courthouse in downtown Chattanooga, Tennessee, despite bipartisan lobbying from city and federal officials for a different site.

“The feds get what the feds want, ultimately,” Klumb said.

In a statement, a GSA spokesperson declined to clarify the agency’s current role in acquiring ICE detention facilities. The statement said the agency was “following all lease procurement procedures in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.”

Communities have largely been left out of the administration’s immigration decision-making process.

New documents confirm federal government plans to put an ICE facility in Merrimack

“Most of the information we have received on this facility has been through news leaks and the government has not reached out to us yet,” said Paul Micali, the town manager of Merrimack, New Hampshire.

Through an open records request, the ACLU of New Hampshire confirmed that ICE was planning to convert a 43-acre warehouse property in the town of about 28,200.

The federal plans were obtained from the state’s historic preservation office, which came under fire for not informing Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte of ICE’s proposal. That agency’s top official resigned last week after pressure from Ayotte.

Ayotte’s office did not respond to a request for comment. On Thursday, her office released documents detailing how the federal government’s $158 million plan to retrofit the property would create hundreds of long-term jobs for the region.

Testifying before Congress Thursday, an ICE official said the feds will not cancel the project over local concerns.

Micali said the vacant warehouse currently provides about $529,000 in annual property taxes — a substantial sum given the town’s property tax base of about $20 million.

In a letter to Noem, the Town Council said converting the property to a tax-free federal facility would result in higher local taxes for residents. Merrimack is also concerned about potential demands for water, fire and other city services, Micali said, but can’t even begin to assess needs without more details from the feds.

He’s speaking with lawyers about what options, if any, the town may have to assert local zoning power.

“We’re looking at every possibility,” he said.

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. 

An Amazon Web Services data center is shown situated near single-family homes in Stone Ridge, Va., in 2024. As Americans grow increasingly frustrated over their electricity bills, states are trying to keep the nation’s growing number of data centers from causing higher energy costs for consumers. (Photo by Nathan Howard/Getty Images)

As Americans grow increasingly frustrated over their electricity bills, states are trying to keep the nation’s growing number of data centers from causing higher energy costs for consumers.

For years, many states competed aggressively to land data centers, sprawling campuses full of the computer servers that store and transmit the data behind apps and websites. But many officials are now scrutinizing how those power-hungry projects might affect the electric bills of households, small businesses and other industries.

Oregon last year became one of the first states to enact a law requiring utilities to charge data centers different electric prices than other industries because of how they drive up the cost of energy production and transmission.

“We are now making data centers pay a higher rate commensurate with the amount of energy they’re sucking out of the system,” said Oregon state Rep. Tom Andersen, a Democrat.

Republican and Democratic leaders in at least a dozen states have targeted data centers with separate, higher electric rates to protect other customers. States also are requiring long-term commitments and financial guarantees through collateral before greenlighting infrastructure investments for new data center projects. But lawmakers acknowledge that numerous factors affect energy prices, so targeting data center-specific costs can be complicated.

An increasingly digital world and the rise of energy-intensive artificial intelligence has led to major expansion of data centers: Consultant McKinsey & Company expects companies to spend nearly $7 trillion worldwide on data centers by 2030. But the industry is facing growing scrutiny, from neighbors who don’t want to live near the massive server farms and from residents worried about how data centers will affect their own swelling utility bills.

Delaware legislation that would charge data centers higher rates advanced out of committee last week. On Tuesday, a Florida state Senate committee approved a bill that would create new rate structures for data centers.

In Oklahoma, a Republican state senator has proposed a moratorium on new data centers until late 2029, allowing the state to study how data centers affect utility rates, the environment and property values.

Separate legislation from state Rep. Brad Boles will seek to protect other ratepayers from the costs of data centers. Boles, the Republican chair of the state Energy and Natural Resources Oversight Committee, said his in-the-works measure would ensure data centers pay their fair share.

Boles told Stateline that his constituents are increasingly worried about data centers, with a dozen potential major ones proposed across the state.

“We’re trying to ensure that those data centers pay for their own infrastructure and we don’t shift that cost or burden to everyday Oklahomans,” he said.

In Oregon, Andersen’s legislation created a new rate structure for data centers with long-term contracts and required regulators to separate the costs of those facilities from other ratepayers.

But consumer advocates have already accused the state’s largest utility of trying to skirt the new law by making residential customers pay part of the long-term cost of supplying large data centers in a pending rate case.

Andersen, a member of the state House Committee on Climate, Energy and Environment, said the new rate structure is unlikely to immediately lower consumer bills. Rather, it aims to curb future increases as data centers require more power generation and transmission.

“We’re not going to change the rates that are being currently paid by the ratepayers and the users of the electricity,” he said. “It’s just going to stop future raises.”

The data center boom

Rising utility bills continue to outpace inflation, sparking anger from consumers and more scrutiny from state regulators, governors and lawmakers.

The boom of data centers is frequently cited as a prime reason for rising electricity prices, as their operation requires more power generation, transmission and distribution upgrades. A Bloomberg News analysis in September found wholesale electricity costs as much as 267% more for a single month than it did five years ago in areas with significant data center activity.

Data center companies say they aren’t the only reason prices are rising.

“It’s inaccurate to draw a clear line between large load customers like data centers coming online and increases in prices. It’s just not that simple,” said Lucas Fykes, senior director of energy policy and regulatory counsel at the Data Center Coalition, a trade group representing data center owners and users, including Amazon, Meta and Visa.

He said many factors have contributed to higher electricity prices, including extreme weather events and the nation’s aging electric grid.

Fykes said his organization opposes rate structures that treat data centers differently from other large electric users such as industrial sites. The organization is working with regulators as states increasingly implement practices to ensure residents and small businesses aren’t on the hook for big energy investments if major projects including data centers don’t come to fruition.

Fykes said the country is likely just in the “beginning innings” of a longer ramp-up in technology and power needs.

“We are also in a global race to build out data centers, to support AI, to support cloud infrastructure,” he said. “It’s important to make sure that we maintain those assets here in the United States.”

That can pose competing interests for political leaders, including mayors, who have pushed hard to land investments from tech companies.

“We want to be leaders in AI, but we don’t want the infrastructure needed to support it,” said Rusty Paul, the mayor of Sandy Springs, Georgia, in the Atlanta metro area.

He was among several mayors addressing the issue of data centers at last month’s winter meeting of the United States Conference of Mayors in Washington, D.C. On a data center panel, Paul acknowledged the effect of Georgia’s tax incentives for data centers: “They’re just popping up everywhere,” he said.

But utilities and regulators are also making long overdue grid upgrades that aren’t tied to data centers, he said.

“The cost of electricity is going up for everybody — and it’s not all related to data centers,” he said.

A bipartisan push

The Georgia Public Service Commission last year created new rules that officials said would protect ratepayers from data center costs. In addition to covering costs of power consumed at their facilities, data centers would have to fund the costs incurred by upstream generation, transmission and distribution, the regulator said.

But lawmakers aren’t convinced those steps went far enough.

State Sen. Chuck Hufstetler, a Republican, is again pushing legislation that would solidify the regulator’s rules into law. His bill would prohibit utilities from passing along the fuel, generation or transmission costs of data centers to other customers.

He told Stateline that the regulator’s rules need to be codified into law so they can’t be weakened later.

Hufstetler said rising utility bills are among the biggest issues facing his constituents. High prices played a key role in November’s election, when Democrats flipped two seats on the state’s Public Service Commission board — the first time Democrats won statewide constitutional office in nearly two decades.

“I saw people with MAGA hats going into the election polling places that were saying, ‘I’m not voting for those guys that raised my rates,’” Hufstetler said, referring to the Republican incumbents who lost.

Hufstetler said the bill, which passed out of committee last year, has already gained major bipartisan support in the Senate, where it is sponsored by multiple Republicans and Democrats.

“This is very bipartisan,” he said. “We have all heard from our people around the state of Georgia.”

The Georgia Public Service Commission agrees in principle with the legislation, said agency spokesperson Tom Krause. But he said the regulator worries about losing flexibility if its rules are written into law.

“Not just this bill, but whenever the legislature codifies a rule that we put in place, we get a little nervous because it can tie our hands in special circumstances,” he said.

A complex challenge

As part of implementing a law enacted last year, Maryland’s utility regulator is weighing a new rate structure for data centers and other large load users.

Proposed regulations would require certain preapproval analysis for heavy power users, a separate rate tariff for data centers and collateral to ensure other ratepayers don’t end up paying for major investments if projects do not come to fruition.

Maryland’s Office of People’s Counsel, an independent agency representing residential utility users, said the proposed changes meet statutory requirements but could do more to protect consumers.

In a news release last month, Maryland People’s Counsel David S. Lapp said residents are already facing higher costs from data centers from outside the state.

“While we push for better federal rules to address those costs, Maryland has the power—and customers a clear need—to make sure data centers within Maryland take on every cost that they impose on residential customers,” Lapp said.

Democratic Gov. Wes Moore recently joined 12 other governors and the Trump administration in urging the regional grid operator, PJM Interconnection, to shield residents and businesses from the infrastructure costs from data centers.

Maryland state Del. Lorig Charkoudian, a Democrat, said the grid operator has for years failed residents in the 13 states plus the District of Columbia that it serves. By delaying renewable energy projects, she said, PJM has kept older, more expensive power plants online, driving up prices as data centers increase demand.

PJM’s board last month rolled out a new data center plan that it said would improve demand forecasting, accelerate the addition of new generation projects and give states a larger role.

Charkoudian said states and utilities struggle to determine just how much power is needed. Data center users shop around for sites, which can cause wildly inaccurate forecasts of just how much power a utility will need.

“It actually has a very concrete financial impact on ratepayers,” she told Stateline. “And so that’s why one of the things that really could make a difference for ratepayers is if we actually had an accurate count of how much we’re getting online.”

While some of those challenges lie outside the realm of state control, Charkoudian said there are things the state can do, including the new rate structure for larger users. She’s crafting a bill encouraging data centers to curtail their power usage during peak periods, such as hot days, when the electrical system is taxed by heavy usage of air conditioners, Maryland Matters reported.

Charkoudian said adding solar generation and storage are low-cost ways to respond quickly to demand. And states can avoid the need for more generation by doubling down on energy efficiency programs that lower demand and also consumer costs.

“The best time to fix this was five years ago,” she said. “The next best time is right this minute, because it’s only going to get worse.”

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira contributed to this story. Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.