After severe 76% electricity price hikes due to AI data centers, Virginia requires firms to pay for all dedicated upstream electrical infrastructure — state regulators crack down, governor says move will save civilians ‘hundreds of millions of dollars’ ⁠65%

By Jowi Morales⁠82%

8/6/2026, 8:32:08 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 21.9% saturation with 121 hits. Analysis detected 1,052 faulty-reasoning hits from 553 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠65% (10,908 of 30,584 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 64.30% of the article peer group.

The State Corporation Commission, Virginia’s independent state agency that regulates public utilities, has ordered data centers to pay for all the required transmission infrastructure that the project will use exclusively. 
According to Realtor.com , Governor Abigail Spanberger (D) has recently been pressing AI hyperscalers to reduce their impact on the power grid and utility prices. 
Massive AI data center buildouts are squeezing energy supplies 
Virginia currently has the greatest number of data centers across the U.S., with the state hosting at least 570 sites. 
Because of the massive power demand of these sites, the state has been experiencing issues with electricity price hikes, with one county even asking its employees, including schools, to conserve power . 
PJM Interconnection, which distributes power to the state, has increased prices by 76% , with Monitoring Analytics, the independent watchdog keeping an eye on the utility company, saying that this is mostly due to AI data centers. 
The move requiring data centers to pay for their own upstream electrical infrastructure should, hopefully, ease the burden on the average Virginian. 
"We are taking real steps to address rising energy costs for Virginians," said Gov. 
Spanberger. 
"I will continue to work with the General Assembly and take action to make sure data centers pay their fair share, adhere to strict environmental standards, and listen to the concerns of local communities.” 
This is one of the first statewide announcements that will enforce President Donald Trump’s ratepayer protection pledge. 
Trump summoned the biggest AI hyperscalers to the White House in early March and made them promise that they will “pay their own way” when it comes to building the infrastructure they need. 
But despite this, the burden of more expensive electricity hasn’t eased for the average American. 
The administration expanded this promise in late July to include state governors, utility companies, and data center developers. 
Many critics said that this pledge is nothing but a piece of paper, with some comparing it to a “pinky promise.” 
After all, this is just a commitment and not a regulation that would penalize companies that don’t comply. 
Nevertheless, it seems that it has spurred at least one state to make a move that should, hopefully, have a material impact on the average citizen. 
Aside from Virginia, Oregon is the only other state, so far, that has raised electrical rates for large consumers, like data centers. 
According to the Oregon POWER Act, facilities that consume 20 MW or more are assigned to a higher rate class. 
Portland General Electric, the state’s largest power supplier, has already implemented this, resulting in a 30% rate increase for these big power users, while also cutting residential costs by 1.3%. 
While the average consumer isn’t necessarily paying for the power that data centers consume, utility companies had to conduct massive grid upgrades to support the increased demand from these developments. 
The utility companies then equally passed on all the necessary capital expenditure to all consumers, instead of just the data centers. 
By requiring data centers to spend on their own grid upgrades, further increases in electricity prices could, hopefully, be prevented. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.2%Jowi Morales: 3.6%Tom's Hardware: 2.9%Confirmation Bias15.2%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 3.0%Tom's Hardware: 1.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 14.3%Jowi Morales: 4.4%Tom's Hardware: 2.9%Availability Heuristic14.3%This article: 3.6%Jowi Morales: 1.1%Tom's Hardware: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic3.6%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 1.7%Tom's Hardware: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 2.0%Tom's Hardware: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.9%Jowi Morales: 9.0%Tom's Hardware: 6.4%Framing Effect6.9%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 1.6%Tom's Hardware: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.8%Tom's Hardware: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.3%Tom's Hardware: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 19.2%Jowi Morales: 4.5%Tom's Hardware: 4.5%Optimism Bias19.2%This article: 6.1%Jowi Morales: 2.6%Tom's Hardware: 2.2%Pessimism Bias6.1%This article: 13.9%Jowi Morales: 10.0%Tom's Hardware: 5.5%Negativity Bias13.9%This article: 2.5%Jowi Morales: 1.3%Tom's Hardware: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias2.5%This article: 7.1%Jowi Morales: 0.8%Tom's Hardware: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error7.1%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.3%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.7%Tom's Hardware: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.3%Tom's Hardware: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 1.9%Tom's Hardware: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.3%Jowi Morales: 1.5%Tom's Hardware: 1.5%Recency Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.4%Tom's Hardware: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.3%Tom's Hardware: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 3.8%Jowi Morales: 0.3%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Straw Man3.8%This article: 6.0%Jowi Morales: 4.9%Tom's Hardware: 3.8%Appeal to Authority6.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 2.6%Tom's Hardware: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 1.1%Tom's Hardware: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.1%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.7%Jowi Morales: 6.5%Tom's Hardware: 4.8%Hasty Generalization6.7%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.6%Tom's Hardware: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 6.0%Jowi Morales: 0.8%Tom's Hardware: 0.7%Bandwagon6.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 4.7%Tom's Hardware: 2.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 12.1%Jowi Morales: 0.7%Tom's Hardware: 0.6%Begging the Question12.1%This article: 21.9%Jowi Morales: 6.1%Tom's Hardware: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)21.9%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.2%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 1.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.2%Tom's Hardware: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 5.4%Jowi Morales: 0.7%Tom's Hardware: 0.5%Composition/Division5.4%This article: 5.8%Jowi Morales: 3.4%Tom's Hardware: 1.7%Anecdotal5.8%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.1%Jowi Morales: 2.4%Tom's Hardware: 2.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.1%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.1%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.1%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.3%Tom's Hardware: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.1%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 2.1%Tom's Hardware: 1.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 6.0%Jowi Morales: 1.7%Tom's Hardware: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection6.0%This article: 6.9%Jowi Morales: 6.8%Tom's Hardware: 5.4%Biased Writer Voice6.9%This article: 4.5%Jowi Morales: 1.2%Tom's Hardware: 0.8%Indoctrination4.5%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.2%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.1%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 4.0%Tom's Hardware: 2.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

553 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers27%attributed speech405writer words
Selected voice

Donald Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
33 attributed words22% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Donald Trump: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-9.4 ptsWriter: 9.4%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-6.2 ptsWriter: 6.2%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.