Yesterday at the PJM Annual Meeting marked a pivotal moment, as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission announced its intent to address flaws in PJM’s governance and stakeholder process, with a focus on identifying actionable reforms to ensure that our regional power grid does its job efficiently and in the public’s interest.

PJM is the company that makes sure the lights stay on for about 67 million people across 13 states by managing the flow of electricity through a giant shared power grid. Since 2019, I have worked with colleagues from our neighboring PJM states to learn this complex system, advocate on behalf of ratepayers, and figure out what can be done on the states’ side to address how cost allocation and interconnection are managed.

I currently serve as the state lead for Pennsylvania on the PJM Legislators Collaborative steering committee, and this week I joined our Chair, Senator Katie Fry Hester (MD), and our colleague and PJM expert, Delegate Lorig Charkoudian (MD) at the PJM Annual Meeting in Baltimore, for conversations with FERC and PJM staff and with PJM board members.

Data center development has been the leading driver of the cost increases we are all seeing in our electricity bills. Power-hungry data centers coming online and phantom load from speculative data center exploration have sent the capacity markets soaring, forcing the governors of the PJM states, led by Governor Shapiro, to step in and negotiate a price cap for the last two capacity auctions to prevent rates from surging even higher. But while a price cap buys us time to figure this out, a price cap alone does not solve the problem.

“Phantom load” refers to the massive energy demand requests of proposed AI data center projects that are not yet built and may never actually be built. Developers often submit duplicate requests across multiple markets, making it difficult for grid operators like PJM to forecast true power needs. To solve this problem, we must find a way to identify and remove duplicative phantom load from our forecast, and we must assign data center load to its own capacity market, separate from regular ratepayers. Without these corrections, the problem persists. Artificially inflated market pressures continue to build, the correct market signals do not get sent, and everyone pays. But energy generators and suppliers, the voting stakeholders in PJM, benefit from inflated capacity rates for energy they will never have to deliver, so there is no incentive for them to fix it.

Solving this problem is exactly what we worked on this week at the PJM Annual Meeting. Last night I was truly grateful for the time the PJM Board gave to me and fellow members of the PJM Legislators Collaborative, led by Senator Katie Fry Hester from Maryland. We sat down in person with PJM staff and members of the PJM Board to build a better understanding of the gaps and what action states need from PJM in order to protect residential and other general ratepayers from data center cost shifting.

Yesterday morning we had the opportunity to sit down with staff from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, who gave us helpful technical advice on how to leverage the Federal Power Act and have our concerns and demands heard and addressed through the FERC process. We walked away from our conversations with clear action items and a sense that we were heard.

And while data centers’ impact on the capacity markets is the most immediate and painful problem, the need to reform PJM Governance has never been more apparent. This soon to be 100-year-old giant, which controls the power for 20% of the United States population and economy and the central grid for much of our national defense and security infrastructure, has a governance structure that incentivizes gridlock and greed. The members who vote on decisions about PJM are the very entities that profit from the status quo, inflated demand forecasts, and an uneven playing field.

The reality is that PJM is too slow and the current stakeholder process too broken to meet this critical moment, and the consequences have the potential to be catastrophic. This is a theme we heard echoed throughout the week, as I joined the PJM Legislators Collaborative in calling for PJM governance reform.

On Monday, Democratic Governor Wes Moore of Maryland addressed the room with a firm and pointed call for accountability and reform. And on Tuesday, Republican FERC Chair Laura Swett delivered a powerful and fiery rebuke of the current stakeholder process, suggesting it fails to meet the goals set in PJM Manual 34, being too slow, opaque, and vulnerable to obstruction. This inefficiency threatens reliability, affordability, and public confidence. Chair Swett expressed confidence that PJM and its stakeholders can rise to the challenge for the sake of the 67 million Americans who depend on it, and for the sake of the nation’s global energy leadership.

Most importantly, Chair Swett followed her remarks with the announcement of an official order of action by FERC to convene a technical conference on July 23 in Washington, D.C., to identify flaws and, more importantly, actionable solutions for PJM’s stakeholder process and governance.

After years of advocacy and deep frustration with a system that is so clearly broken, yesterday’s action by FERC gives me hope that we are getting a once-in-a-generation opportunity to meet the moment, recenter priorities, give states a voice in these decisions, and give ratepayers relief from a system that has outgrown its existing structure and has too often prioritized corporate profits over public interest. We are at a critical juncture, and we have a real chance at implementing meaningful reform at a moment when it is most desperately needed.

We’ve talked a lot about how soaring demand for electricity, driven by data center development and speculation, is causing electric bills to skyrocket. And while all 13 states on our regional electric grid are feeling the impacts, Pennsylvania’s decision to double-down on liquid natural gas (LNG) exports and our heavy reliance on natural gas for power generation here in the commonwealth leave us especially vulnerable to market pressures.

In Pennsylvania, we rely on natural gas for roughly 60% of our electricity generation, compared to a national average of 40%. That over-reliance on a single, fossil-fuel derived energy source means every ripple in the global energy markets flows right through to the electric bills of Pennsylvania households and commercial businesses. When global natural gas prices surge, Pennsylvania electricity rates follow.

In January, we talked about how power plant outages took 20,000 MW, or 15% of our energy demand, off the grid, just as single-digit temperatures were resulting in record demand. That’s because subfreezing temperatures can cause natural gas transmission lines, pipes, and valves to freeze and force shutdowns at well heads. We saw extreme impacts of this phenomenon during the ice storms that famously took huge portions of the Texas power grid offline for weeks in the winter of 2021.

A month later, following the attacks on Iran by the United States and Israel, global energy markets are reeling from the impacts to shipping channels and fossil fuel production in the region. Roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil and LNG is transported through the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran closed following the attacks. More than 3,000 ships use the strait every month, carrying crude oil, refined petroleum, and LNG. When that corridor closed, global fuel markets reacted immediately and dramatically.

Oil prices soared to nearly $120 a barrel in the days following the attack, rapidly fell to $85 on the administration’s suggestion that the conflict might be short-lived, and are back up to $95 as of this writing. And while most news coverage has focused on the nationwide impact at the gas pump, those impacts are only a preview of what we may soon be seeing in our electric bills here in Pennsylvania, where the impact of natural gas price spikes takes longer to arrive but can be even more consequential.

Qatar, home to the world’s largest LNG facility, has shut down production in response to the conflict. Energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie warned that the conflict is “wreaking havoc with global gas and LNG markets, even more so than oil.”

This is not a new problem, but it is a worsening one. Pennsylvania electricity rates rose nearly 9 percent in 2025 alone, nearly double the national average increase of 5 percent. Taken over a longer period, Pennsylvanians were paying 46 percent more for electricity in 2025 than they were in 2018. For the past three years running, the Pennsylvania Utility Law Project, which advocates for low-income utility customers, has reported record levels of utility disconnections across the state.

Pennsylvania is the second-largest producer of natural gas in the entire country, and one of the largest exporters of electricity. The gas is flowing out of our ground. But because of the way the markets are structured, Pennsylvanians don’t automatically get cheaper energy as a result. We pay the market rate, and the market rate is set globally.

Since 2016, U.S. LNG export capacity has grown enormously, driven by the fracking boom, much of which is centered in Pennsylvania. The United States is now the world’s largest LNG exporter, outpacing both Australia and Qatar. Last year, for the first time in American history, LNG export terminals consumed more natural gas than all 74 million American households with natural gas utility service combined.

Gas can now be liquefied and shipped to Europe or Asia, where buyers have been willing to pay a premium. That competition drives up prices here. The consequence is that domestic natural gas prices, which were once relatively insulated from global markets because gas had to move through pipelines, are now increasingly linked to international supply and demand.

These global vulnerabilities, combined with increased data center demand, international supply chain challenges, the added cost pressures of rising tariffs, and an eight‑year backlog of mostly renewable energy projects in the PJM interconnection queue, have created a perfect storm of energy price volatility.

In addition to the significant environmental and public health concerns around our over-reliance on fossil fuel production, these crazy market conditions create clear economic winners and losers. Global oil and gas producers and LNG exporters are raking in money, while Pennsylvania ratepayers are absorbing the costs. Small businesses, school districts, and local governments are also feeling the pain in their energy budgets, and these extra costs are then passed along to consumers and taxpayers, resulting in a triple whammy for Pennsylvania ratepayers.

So, what can we do about it?

Some of the forces driving our electric bills higher are outside the state’s control, like global energy markets, foreign wars, and federal export policies. But there are meaningful steps we can take at the state level to protect Pennsylvanians from soaring costs and outside pressures.

In addition to the multiple bills moving through the House that seek to protect Pennsylvania ratepayers from costs created by data center development, there are several more that focus on energy diversification; that is, reducing Pennsylvania’s reliance on natural gas for electricity generation by expanding renewable energy, battery storage, and demand response. Every kilowatt-hour of electricity generated from a Pennsylvania wind or solar project is a kilowatt-hour that doesn’t depend on what is happening in the Strait of Hormuz. Twenty years ago, Pennsylvania was a national leader in renewable energy development. A renewed commitment to that legacy would help insulate ratepayers from future global shocks.

My PRESS legislation, HB 501, would increase grid reliability, reduce emissions, and lower energy costs for consumers by incentivizing the development of diverse clean, reliable energy sources. Options like plug-in solar and community solar could provide near-term relief for ratepayers by allowing households to generate their own power or get power from local renewable sources, reducing dependence on the grid.

I am committed to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to advocate for forward-thinking energy policy that protects consumers from data center demand, corporate greed, polluting industry, and global volatility.

Pennsylvania families opened their electric bills in January and February and saw something alarming: sharp increases that are straining household budgets across the commonwealth.

When bills jump this quickly, the obvious question is, “why?” On the surface, the answer is simple: demand for electricity currently exceeds supply. But in actuality, much of the projected demand that we’re paying for may never materialize.

Our electric grid is intentionally built with a buffer. Planners secure more electric generating capacity than we expect to use on a normal day, so the lights stay on during extreme weather or unexpected outages. Most Pennsylvanians understand and accept that logic. A reasonable reliability cushion is part of running a safe system. But that built-in cushion is only reasonable if the underlying numbers are realistic.

Today, one of the fastest-moving pressures on our grid system is the surge in potential new “large load” electricity users like data centers. Developers of these projects often explore multiple locations across several states at the same time before making a final siting decision. And electricity providers for each prospective location factor that increase into their projections of future need.

From a planning standpoint, that creates a real challenge. The same massive potential load can appear in forecasts in Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, and elsewhere, even though only one facility—or none of the facilities—may ultimately be built.

If those projections are not carefully vetted and updated, our regional grid operator, PJM Interconnection, can end up procuring more capacity than is actually needed. And because electricity prices are based on projected demand, the costs for this excess power still turn up on customers’ electric bills.

In theory, market forces should correct over-forecasting. But in practice, utilities and power generators have no incentive to make more realistic forecasts; in fact, they benefit from the higher rates caused by “phantom” demand, without ever having to build it. Instead, customers bear the financial consequences of the industry’s forecasting error, in the form of higher electric bills.

In plain terms: In the absence of clear regulation and oversight, the financial risk of over-procurement falls disproportionately on households and small businesses.

Given the rate increases Pennsylvanians have experienced this winter, policymakers should focus on practical consumer protections within the system we have today.

First, large-load forecasting standards should be strengthened so that speculative projects are not effectively counted multiple times across the PJM region.

Second, regulators should require regular “true-ups” when forecasted demand does not materialize. If the system procures capacity based on demand that never shows up, there should be a mechanism to reconcile the difference.

Third, policymakers should explore mechanisms for consumer rebates or bill credits when significant over-procurement occurs. If families are paying for a reliability cushion, that cushion should be grounded in realistic assumptions.

Fourth, cost-causation rules must remain clear and enforceable so that the large load customers driving new system costs such as added transmission lines or other infrastructure bear those costs, not residential ratepayers.

Finally, greater transparency around large-load projections would help utilities, regulators, and the public better understand how major demand assumptions are shaping future electric bills.

Electric bills are not an abstract policy debate. They are a monthly expense that affects seniors on fixed incomes, working families, and small businesses across Pennsylvania. The sharp increases many households experienced this winter are a reminder of how important it is to get the underlying rules right.

In November, the state House passed legislation that gives the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission the authority to review and validate load forecasts submitted to PJM by Pennsylvania utilities. Now we need to address the other side of the equation and close the gap in oversight of regional capacity charges created by phantom data center demand.

With the PUC now better positioned to identify the costs triggered by a specific data center project or other large load addition, it’s time to hold specific large load customers—not ratepayers—responsible for all costs and financial risk resulting from PJM’s procurement of new supply to meet that customer’s electric demand for facilities in Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania cannot control every regional market dynamic. But we can make sure our policies and oversight are structured to protect Pennsylvania ratepayers as effectively as possible.

I am deeply grateful for the opportunity and the trust you have placed in me to serve as your state representative at this critical moment. I take that responsibility seriously, and I approach this work with the full weight of what it demands.

Over the past decade, I have built on my personal experience as a citizen standing up to large corporations during the Mariner East pipeline expansion and translated that experience into meaningful legislative work. I have engaged extensively with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Environmental Quality Board, the Independent Regulatory Review Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and PJM, our regional grid operator. I have served on the House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee, and I currently serve on the Environment and Natural Resources Protection Committee.

This summer, I was selected to participate in the Center for New Energy Economy’s Clean Energy Legislative Academy, where we examined data centers from every perspective: grid reliability, energy affordability, environmental impact, emergency response, land use planning, and national security. I have also served as Pennsylvania state lead for the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators and I am Pennsylvania’s representative on the steering committee of a 13-state collaborative working to develop responsible, forward-looking policy in this rapidly evolving area.

This is one of the most consequential and complex policy issues of our time. In our divided legislature, in our purple state, the path to progress can be frustratingly slow, and it requires discussion and engagement. Cynicism is not a strategy. Disengagement is not leadership. Full engagement is imperative, and to do nothing would be legislative malpractice.

Why I removed my name as a cosponsor.

I removed my name as a cosponsor from several bills related to data center policy, and I want to explain why.

At the start of this legislative session, House leadership divided the former Environmental Resources and Energy Committee into two separate committees: the Energy Committee and the Environment and Natural Resources Protection Committee. While I served for six years on the original combined committee, I was not assigned to the Energy Committee this session.

A package of data center bills was referred to committees on which I do not serve. But legislation can change substantively from the point of concept to the time it arrives on the House floor for a final vote. Because the most substantive shaping of legislation occurs in committee—through hearings, stakeholder testimony, and amendments—I will not have the opportunity to participate directly in that process.

For that reason, I made the decision to remove my name as a cosponsor on several data center bills so that I can remain neutral on the specific language until the legislation reaches the House floor, at which point I will be able to evaluate it fully and fairly in its final form.

This decision does not reflect opposition to legislative action. To the contrary, I believe strongly that we must act thoughtfully and responsibly in this space. Legislation evolves, and House Bill 2151 and related proposals are actively being shaped through stakeholder input and committee deliberations. If the final language reflects the protections, transparency, and accountability our communities deserve, I fully expect to be supportive.

What does HB 2151 do? And why does it matter?

House Bill 2151 would amend the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code by directing the Center for Local Government Services to develop and maintain a model zoning ordinance to assist municipalities in regulating data centers and mitigating community impacts.

The bill does not require municipalities to adopt the model ordinance, and the language of the model ordinance would not be placed in the Municipalities Planning Code. Local governments retain authority over their own zoning decisions. However, placing this directive to the Center for Local Government Services within the Municipalities Planning Code elevates its significance and influence within the Commonwealth’s core land use statute. Based on committee testimony and stakeholder feedback, the appropriate placement and structure of this provision are actively under consideration as potential amendments.

These decisions matter because one thing you cannot get back after a data center is approved is distance. Without clear and defensible setbacks and protections established upfront, communities lose one of their most important safeguards.

We learned this lesson through Mariner East. Once infrastructure is approved and in the ground, it becomes much harder to secure meaningful protections. The leverage exists before approval—not after.

That is why the time to establish clear, transparent, and defensible ground rules is now.

Pennsylvania has more than 2,550 municipalities—each with unique geography, zoning, infrastructure constraints, and community priorities. Given the magnitude of this issue and the far-reaching implications of decisions made at the local level, it is imperative that the Commonwealth provide clear guidance, best practices, and ongoing support to help municipalities develop policies that reflect their local needs while also protecting taxpayers, ratepayers, public safety, and our shared environment.

If you are working in your township or borough to encourage local leaders to engage on this issue, I urge you to continue. Your voice matters. Protecting Pennsylvania’s long-term interests will require thoughtful engagement at every level of government, and all of us must remain committed to doing this work responsibly.

My commitment to you.

Shaping and advancing good AI, data center, and energy policy will be a long, challenging, ongoing process. There will be bills that move forward and bills that do not. There will be revisions, amendments, and difficult decisions along the way.

My commitment is to remain fully engaged, in earnest and in good faith, on behalf of Pennsylvanians. I will work to ensure that any legislation protects our communities, safeguards our environment, preserves local authority, and ensures that energy remains reliable and affordable for ratepayers.

Taking a purely oppositional stance that avoids engagement is not leadership. Nor is accepting legislation without scrutiny. Our responsibility is to do the hard work—to examine proposals carefully, listen to experts and stakeholders, and ensure that the outcome serves the public interest.

I feel prepared, supported by experts, and fully committed to engaging thoughtfully and responsibly on behalf of our community and the Commonwealth.

That is the responsibility you entrusted to me, and it is the responsibility I will continue to uphold.