Senate adopts amended bill to set rules for large-energy users after weeks of testimony and industry concern

The Delaware Senate on June 30 passed House Substitute 1 for House Bill 233, a measure to set protections and regulatory parameters for large energy users, including data centers, incorporating Senate Amendment 2. The final roll call on the amended house substitute was 15 yes and 6 no; earlier the chamber approved Senate Amendment 2 by roll call (20 yes, 1 no).

Supporters said the legislation is intended to protect ordinary ratepayers by requiring cost protections and creating a framework for the Public Service Commission to write implementing regulations. Sponsor Senator Hansen described the bill as setting parameters “around which cost protections are insured for other non large energy use facility customers” and said the measure contemplates parallel work by PJM and FERC while the PSC drafts rules.

The bill drew extensive testimony and questions. An industry witness who identified his employer as Constellation Energy described the utility and market context and cautioned that some federal and regional processes — notably PJM’s connect‑and‑manage work and FERC review — remain unfolding: “PJM’s made their filing. FERC reviews that, issues their order…that won’t happen until, like, late September at this point,” he said, urging senators to understand the timing of related filings and reviews.

Jamieson Tweedy, the state’s Public Advocate, told the Senate that the state should act before certain PJM deadlines to avoid having projects proceed in the absence of state policy. “One of the most important reasons to act,” Tweedy said, “is that whatever standards we are putting in place…needs to be in place before those facilities start applying.” He flagged a March 1, 2027 deadline in PJM’s timelines for parameters affecting connect‑and‑manage that make concurrent rulemaking important.

Business groups and trade associations urged caution. Jeffrey Stroell of the New Castle County Chamber summarized broad industry concerns and asked for more time, saying multiple business and labor organizations were worried the bill could sweep in other industrial users via aggregation language and that a pause would permit needed fixes: “There is not a rush…Right now we have time to get it right,” he told senators. The chamber noted pending PSC tariff proceedings and litigation affecting particular projects and urged more stakeholder engagement.

Senate Amendment 2 changed key definitions and thresholds — for example, the amendment altered the aggregation/megawatt thresholds and clarified which facilities would be treated as large‑energy users — and was presented on the floor as a direct response to concerns raised in committee and by industry. After the amendment passed, the amended house substitute passed on the floor and was declared passed by the presiding officer.

What happens next: the bill, as amended on the floor, requires the Public Service Commission to promulgate implementing regulations that reflect PJM and FERC outcomes and to write tariff and transmission‑service agreement language compatible with federal rules. Sponsors and witnesses repeatedly emphasized that the bill leaves rulemaking details to the PSC and anticipates further adjustments as federal and regional processes conclude.

Key quote: Jamieson Tweedy, the public advocate, told the Senate it was important to act ahead of PJM technical deadlines: “That deadline is approaching rapidly,” he said of the March 1, 2027 timetable, and argued that regulations and PSC processes take time to draft and implement.

The Senate’s roll calls related to the measure are recorded in the legislative record; earlier that evening the chamber recorded the passage of Senate Amendment 2 (roll call result 20–1) and later approved House Substitute 1 for House Bill 233 as amended (final roll 15–6). Sponsors said they remain open to follow‑up work with stakeholders during the PSC rulemaking process.