By Robert Bradley Jr. — July 30, 2026
Editor Note: Glen Lyons and Travis Fisher have expanded the public policy debate concerning electricity with Advocates for Consumer Regulated Electricity (CRE), an offshoot of which is Bring Your Own Power (BYOP). Their initiative proposes privately funded, “islanded” off-grid utilities that bypass public-utility regulation. CRE’s latest quarterly report is provided below.
“CRE/BYOP is no longer just a theoretical reform. It is now connected to federal legislation, FERC action, Texas data center policy, state affordability debates, nuclear innovation, and public concern about rising utility bills.”
Second Quarter 2026 Highlights
Consumer Regulated Electricity (CRE) and Bring Your Own Power (BYOP, aka the Texas version of CRE) are moving from policy concept to active legislative, regulatory, and public advocacy. This past quarter the case for CRE/BYOP has appeared in national policy reports, state testimony, media coverage, federal legislation, and state-specific commentary.
The central message is simple: large new electric loads should be allowed to bring private power online without shifting costs or reliability risks onto existing ratepayers.
At a Glance
- We continued building the intellectual and public case for CRE/BYOP through Cato, media appearances, testimony, and state-focused commentary.
- Federal momentum increased with the House version of the DATA Act, FERC action on large-load integration, and national policy reports emphasizing ratepayer protection.
- Texas is a strong BYOP opportunity as policymakers wrestled with data center growth, grid reliability, cost allocation, and community concerns.
- State-level interest expanded in Louisiana, Missouri, Kentucky, Mississippi, and through ALEC model policy work.
1. Our Written Work, Testimony, and Media
April 19 — Travis Fisher and Glen Lyons explain the basic case for CRE
American economist and author Dr. Robert P. Murphy hosted Travis and Glen on his podcast where they summarized the case for letting large new customers, including AI data centers, build or contract for their own power sources. Their argument: private grids can offer a parallel path to energy abundance without forcing existing customers to carry the cost or reliability risk.
Original: Video summary | Cato briefing paper
Spring 2026 — The Cato CRE paper reaches a broader audience
The Cato briefing paper, The Case for Consumer-Regulated Electricity, was cited on The Lars Larson Show, helping bring the CRE idea beyond energy policy circles.
Original: Cato media highlight
Spring 2026 — Travis Fisher’s framing appears in National Review
A National Review piece described CRE as privately financed, physically off-grid utilities serving new large customers under voluntary contracts. The article quoted Travis explaining that CRE frees private grids from rules designed for monopoly public utilities.
Original: The Free-Market Case for Data Centers
June 2026 — Nicole Nosek and Glen Lyons carry BYOP into the Texas data center debate
In the Austin American-Statesman, Nicole of Texans for Reasonable Solutions and Glen argued that Texas should let data centers and other large customers finance, build, and operate their own off-grid power systems—without drawing from ERCOT, socializing upgrade costs, or creating a reliability burden for families and small businesses.
Original: Bring Your Own Power Could Reshape Texas Data Center Growth
June 2026 — A4CRE testifies before the Texas House State Affairs Committee
A4CRE presented BYOP as a practical answer to Texas’s large-load challenge: let new large customers build their own generation, finance their own infrastructure, and operate independently of the grid. The clearest line: “Take new demand off the grid without taking growth off the table.”
Original: A4CRE testimony post on LinkedIn | Texas House hearing video
July 2026 — Glen makes the “electricity shale revolution” case for Texas
In Texas Policy Research, Glen argued that Texas needs a clear parallel path for off-grid business power so private capital can serve extraordinary new industrial demand while the regulated grid focuses on households and existing customers.
Original: Texas Needs a Shale Revolution in Electricity
2. Federal Action and National Policy Momentum
House version of the DATA Act introduced
Congressman Nick Begich (AK), joined by Representatives Dan Crenshaw (TX) and Burgess Owens (UT), introduced the House companion to Senator Tom Cotton’s DATA Act of 2026. The bill supports self-contained systems so major new energy demand can be served without forcing households to subsidize large new loads.
Original: Congressman Begich DATA Act announcement
FERC launches action on large-load integration
FERC’s June action recognized that large-load integration cannot be business as usual. A4CRE’s key point: FERC can improve the rules for customers that connect to the grid, while CRE gives states a complementary path for customers willing to build and pay for independent power systems.
Original: FERC large-load integration announcement
Energy Secretary Chris Wright reinforces the need for electricity innovation
At a Cato event, Secretary Wright contrasted the shale revolution with the slow growth of electricity production. The lesson for CRE: electricity needs more experimentation, competition, and private risk-taking and it won’t get those through the current system.
Original: Cato event with Secretary Chris Wright
NTU includes CRE in a ratepayer-protection playbook
The National Taxpayers Union’s Speed to Power report included CRE as part of a practical policy framework for meeting AI-related electricity demand while protecting existing customers.
Original: Speed to Power: How Electricity Ratepayers Can Win the AI Race
3. Texas BYOP: The Cleanest Answer to the Data Center Challenge
Governor Abbott’s data center directive creates a major opening
Governor Abbott said data centers should add electric capacity, pay their own infrastructure costs, protect local communities, and reduce the burden on residential ratepayers. BYOP fits that framework by letting data centers use private, islanded systems that do not depend on ERCOT.
Original: Governor Abbott’s data center directive
Texas House testimony puts BYOP in front of lawmakers
A4CRE, Brita Wallace of Texans for Reasonable Solutions, and Gideon Powell of Cholla, Inc. emphasized that BYOP can help Texas address reliability, cost, community concerns, speed, and scale. BYOP is a next-generation model: fully private, focused on new load, completely off-grid, and capable of serving multiple customers and locations.
Original: Texas House State Affairs hearing video
Public concern over data centers strengthens the BYOP case
Polling and survey work show that many Americans are concerned about nearby data centers because of power usage, grid constraints, and higher utility bills. CRE/BYOP directly addresses those concerns by making off-grid power easier to build.
Original: Gallup data center poll | University of Houston survey
4. State-Level CRE Opportunities
Louisiana explores private power options
Louisiana policymakers considered SB 490, a proposal to create a parallel, market-based pathway for large industrial users to directly develop or procure power generation outside the traditional monopoly utility structure. The Louisiana Public Service Commission also opened a docket evaluating private-use electrical networks.
Original: Louisiana Explores New Energy Options
Missouri connects CRE to nuclear innovation
The Show-Me Institute argued that private electricity grids could help Missouri test next-generation nuclear technology and allow data centers to partner with specialized small modular reactor developers without forcing first-of-a-kind risks onto ratepayers.
Original: Opening the Nuclear Sector Up to Innovation in Missouri
Missouri data center debate highlights ratepayer risk
A Missouri opinion piece argued that private electricity grids could create a parallel path for energy generation, protect ratepayers from risk, and accelerate capacity buildout and innovation.
Original: How Missouri Communities Can Keep Data Centers from Raising Utility Bills
Kentucky shows why large customers need a new path
A Kentucky commentary made the point plainly: a data center cannot simply “go to the electricity store,” because utilities are government-protected monopolies. CRE would give large customers a path to create their own electric systems while insulating current ratepayers.
Original: Beshear’s Instincts on Data Centers Are Good, But His Tools Are Few
Mississippi offers another state-level opening
The Mississippi argument is straightforward: do not socialize the cost of a data-center buildout; let new supply stand on its own through private, consumer-regulated producers.
Original: Your Mississippi Energy Advantage
ALEC model policy gives legislators a concrete starting point
ALEC highlighted model policy establishing Consumer Regulated Electric Utilities to serve large energy users such as industrial facilities and data centers while preserving safety, environmental, and siting requirements.
Original: New Commonsense Solutions to Promote Energy Affordability and Reliability in Your State
How You Can Advance CRE/BYOP
Please support CRE/BYOP-style reforms by discussing it with your state and federal legislators. Also, send us suggestions on how we can improve our work, contacts we should connect with, and ideas on how we might help your CRE/BYOP advocacy.
Bottom Line
CRE/BYOP is no longer just a theoretical reform. It is now connected to federal legislation, FERC action, Texas data center policy, state affordability debates, nuclear innovation, and public concern about rising utility bills. The next step is to turn that momentum into clear state laws that allow physically separate, privately financed electric systems for new large customers.
Please share this newsletter with others.
Glen Lyons (glenclyons@gmail.com), Founder and Chief Advocate
Trump is claiming they are permitting these projects in weeks. It is likely data centers will overbuild for future expansion and feed the excess into the grid lowering prices for consumers.
Nope I am not in favor of this. The article clearly points out what the problem is. The problem isn’t large energy users or that we don’t have the wherewithal to supply large users. We can do all of that, no problem. The problem is government interference. There is absolutely no reason that large users can somehow build generation for their needs but somehow it can’t be done for the rest of us. That is BS of the highest order. If the existing grid can’t supply the demands of a new large user it is the new large users responsibility to build a new generation source and make that source available to the grid. The existing grid users should benefit from all new generation. It would be a win win. The problem isn’t large users it is crappy government, eliminate the crappy government not the source of new generation.
“it is the new large users responsibility to build a new generation source”
okay, makes sense
“and make that source available to the grid.”
Why?
Like if you make cookies, must you make one available to me?
Good point, but I took it more generically, not as “available for others to get power for free”, but as selling surplus power … or something.
Kevin I probably wasn’t clear enough. Making that source available to the rest of us isn’t a punishment to the large user rather a handy way to help pay for their investment by selling excess power to us. It is a win win.
This sounds like the cogeneration arguments of the 1980s. Manufacturers that had their own power supply were encouraged to sell excess into the grid, thereby increasing the overall power supply at lower prices and benefiting smaller consumers.
The idea of letting generating companies compete to lower consumer bills made sense. Then the rules in California for example, were written so idiotically, that it led to the Enron fiasco. That mess cost Wyoming consumers a lot of money and has led to deep suspicion here of anything that involves California.
Wyoming appears to be ground zero for this — a state with a small electrical market but designs and permit applications for huge data centers and energy plants of all sorts to support them. Thus, this coming Wednesday there is a Public Service Commission meeting to discuss revisions to Chapter 6 of the Commissions Rules and Regulations to do this very thing.
My only concern is that it will turn out to be not a pure case of electrical energy service by and for private users, but will actually involve transmission assets and lead to congestion issues. In other words, I’m a little concerned about it devolving into a hybrid sort of system with certain private costs being fobbed off on the public.
I’d guess there will eventually be so much excess power that it will make sense to let some of these power plants sell the excess into the regulated system — that will put the cat among the canaries!
I think you are right on this. On one hand it makes sense to tie private generating facilities into the grid, both so the grid can augment their supply as needed and so they can augment the grid’s need. But huge out of the way data centers and their associated generation may require huge transmission lines in out of the way places, and then expecting ratepayers to pick up the tab.