A round-the-clock electricity customer, and the question of who pays for the grid it needs.

Two proposals, two very different power questions.

Prichard (Edged, ~6–8 MW). This is in Alabama Power territory, not PJM, so the Baltimore numbers do not transfer. A load this size is not the scale driving the national rate story. Edged's draft service agreement with Alabama Power states there would be no local rate increase, no new substation, self-funded line extensions, and grid-reliability costs borne "at our sole expense." The question is not whether a load this size will spike bills; it is whether those promises move out of a draft and into a binding, public, enforceable commitment.6

Calvert (Beacon, hyperscale). Here the question is far sharper. A hyperscale AI campus can require new generation and transmission, and who pays for that is decided in utility filings, not a press quote. Beacon has not publicly disclosed the Calvert load. It is the only Beacon site without a number. Everywhere else the company has one on the record: 275 MW at Kern County, CA; about 390 MW of demand at Saint John, NB; 400 MW at Chestermere, AB; and 1,494 MW of generation at the Indus campus in Alberta. Every one of those is above the 150 MW mark that triggers Public Service Commission review in Alabama, some by two to ten times. Calvert's is the one figure residents cannot place against that line. The site-by-site record is on Who is Beacon?13 DataCenterDynamics reported on July 6, 2026 that the campus would include an on-site substation alongside the two buildings, the first piece of named electrical infrastructure for the site. A substation of that size implies a large grid interconnection. Beacon still has not said how many megawatts.12 On its Calvert page, the company says Alabama Power "confirms the energy this development needs already exists on their lines," that "no new power lines will go through the community," and that the project "will not impact community energy bills." Every part of that is attributed to Alabama Power by Beacon, with no Alabama Power statement or filing on the public record; Beacon's own page adds that the cost structure is "subject to state regulatory oversight." If the Calvert contract reaches 150 MW or more, Alabama's SB270 (§37-4-22.1, signed April 17, 2026, effective October 1, 2026) makes it a "Large Load Data Center Customer" and requires the Public Service Commission to confirm the pricing recovers the utility's incremental costs from the data center and yields "positive benefits" to other ratepayers, a check the small Prichard site never triggers. That review is no longer hypothetical. On July 8, 2026 the commission opened a proceeding to write the procedures for exactly these contracts, and it is taking public comments through August 6 (below).14 The way to settle it is to publish the utility agreement.7,11

The commission is writing the contract rules now, and the public can comment until August 6.

On July 8, 2026, the Alabama Public Service Commission opened a generic proceeding to set new procedures and standards for contracts between Alabama Power and large-load data-center customers, using the same 150 MW threshold as SB270. The commission's order names the Calvert and Prichard proposals as part of the backdrop.14

The order also describes the process it would replace. Today, most of these contracts run under Alabama Power's Flexible Contract Rate, a process dating to 1996. Under it, a contract is deemed approved ten days after filing unless the commission rejects it, and the Attorney General, who represents the using and consuming public, is not automatically involved. The proposed replacement: Alabama Power files a public version of each large-load contract, gives unredacted copies to PSC staff and the Attorney General along with every exhibit and an analysis showing the deal recovers the incremental costs of serving the data center, and the commission has 60 days to disapprove it. Staff and the Attorney General can send data requests, answered within five business days. If the commission takes no action in 60 days, the contract is deemed approved.14

Anyone can weigh in. Initial comments are due August 6, 2026; reply comments by August 21. Comments are filed electronically through the commission's e-filing system, and all of them are public. The commission is asking directly for input from consumer advocates and the public: how incremental costs should be calculated, how benefits to other customers should be measured, what information should be public, and whether 60 days is enough time to review a contract of this size.14

One limit to know going in: the commission says Alabama law gives it no jurisdiction over where data centers are built or over their environmental effects. This proceeding is about the power contract only. Alabama Power's statement on the proceeding: it "requires large-load customers, including data centers, to pay the full cost to serve their electric needs, so costs are not shifted to existing customers."14