Customers do not need to understand PJM, capacity markets, or load forecasts to know when something feels expensive.
They see a higher bill.
They hear about AI and data centers.
They read that electricity demand is rising and the grid needs more investment.
And then they ask the question utilities cannot afford to leave unanswered: Am I paying for this?
That question may not capture the full story. But if utilities do not answer it clearly, early, and credibly, it can quickly become the story. That is not just a messaging problem. It is a trust problem.
Customers Do Not Experience This as a Market Design Issue
Inside the industry, this is often framed as a resource adequacy issue, a transmission issue, a market design issue, or a capital planning issue. All true. But that is not how most customers experience it. They experience it as a monthly bill that just went up.
The Chicago Sun-Times recently reported that ComEd customers will see at least a 12% increase in monthly charges starting in June. The same article noted that part of that increase is tied to higher demand and PJM-set prices, while most of the rest is tied to an expiring credit. It also reported that ComEd has more than 80 data centers in Northern Illinois and another 75 proposed large commercial projects that would be major power users.
That combination is exactly why utilities need to communicate more clearly.
When customers hear that demand is climbing, data centers are multiplying, and their bills are rising, many will naturally connect those dots. If utilities do not explain what is actually driving costs and how protections work, they leave room for a much simpler and more damaging conclusion: Data centers showed up, and now I am paying more.
The Real Risk Is Not Confusion. It Is Assumed Unfairness
Customers can tolerate complexity better than many leaders think.
What they struggle with is the sense that something large, costly, and consequential is happening around them without a clear explanation of who benefits, who pays, and what protections are in place. That is where this gets risky. Because once customers begin to assume the system is unfair, every future message gets harder to land.
And the fairness debate is no longer theoretical. Reuters reported that Maryland Governor Wes Moore is pressing for PJM reforms as household bills rise, including requiring data centers to pay more of the infrastructure costs needed to serve them. The same report said PJM’s capacity payments have risen dramatically over the past two years, intensifying the pressure on leaders to explain what is happening and why.
When governors, regulators, utilities, and customers are all debating who should carry the cost, utilities cannot afford to sound vague, delayed, or overly technical.
What Utilities Need to Explain Before Assumptions Harden
Utilities do not need to overpromise. But they do need to explain more plainly. Who pays for what?
This is where confusion starts.
If there are tariffs, infrastructure contributions, contract terms, phased cost recovery mechanisms, or other protections designed to keep existing customers from subsidizing large-load growth, utilities need to explain them in language people can actually understand.
Not regulatory language.
Not investor language.
Human language.
Because if customers do not understand the protections, many will assume there are none.
What is actually driving the bill increase
This is where discipline matters. The ComEd example is useful because it shows how quickly multiple cost drivers can collapse into one public perception. In that case, the reported increase was tied both to PJM-related pricing pressure and to the expiration of a credit. That distinction matters.
If utilities do not explain the difference between immediate bill changes, market pressures, infrastructure needs, and future demand growth, customers will flatten all of it into one story. And that story will usually not be generous.
What benefits customers should or should not expect
If leaders believe large-load growth can support stronger system economics, broader investment, or longer-term customer value, they need to explain that clearly. And if those benefits are uncertain, delayed, or limited, they need to say that too. Customers do not need a polished slogan. They need an honest explanation of the tradeoffs.
What guardrails are in place
Customers want to know whether leadership is planning with discipline.
Are there meaningful commitments from large-load customers?
Are there protections for existing ratepayers?
Are utilities planning around uncertainty, or acting as though every proposed project is guaranteed to move forward?
That question matters even more when utilities themselves acknowledge uncertainty. The Sun-Times reported that ComEd sees far more proposed large-load demand than current electricity production can cover and that it remains unclear how many proposed projects will ultimately materialize.
Utilities do not lose credibility by acknowledging uncertainty. They lose credibility when they ignore it.
Communications Alone Will Not Carry This
Formal communications matter. A lot. Utilities need clear, consistent, executive-level language about cost, fairness, reliability, and customer protections. They need messaging that is accurate enough for regulators, plain enough for customers, and credible enough for employees. But communication alone is not enough.
This moment also requires community outreach because customers and communities do not experience data center growth as an abstract demand forecast. They experience it as something that may affect local infrastructure, reliability, cost, land use, water use, or quality of life.
That changes the job. Communications help utilities explain what is happening. Community outreach helps utilities understand what people are worried about. You need both.
The Sun-Times article hints at exactly why. It notes that Illinois lawmakers are weighing more oversight and transparency around data center growth, including concerns about secrecy in development deals and limited checks on impacts to power, water, and other resources. Once those concerns surface publicly, they stop being just development issues. They become trust issues.
What Stronger Utility Communication Looks Like Right Now
In practical terms, stronger communication in this moment looks like this:
Leading with plain language instead of industry shorthand.
Explaining customer protections before customers start asking whether they are subsidizing growth.
Separating market-driven price pressure, expiring credits, infrastructure needs, and large-load demand instead of allowing all of it to blur together into one story about rising bills.
Acknowledging uncertainty where it exists instead of projecting more confidence than the situation warrants.
Aligning internal and external messaging so employees are not piecing together the story from trade coverage, earnings calls, and hallway conversations.
Treating customer understanding as part of implementation, not as an afterthought once decisions are already in motion.
The Real Test for Utilities
Utilities do not need to have every answer today. But they do need to explain enough, early enough, that customers are not left to build their own version of the story. Because once that story hardens, it becomes much harder to change. And in this environment, the question is not just whether utilities can support growth. It is whether they can explain that growth in a way that protects trust while they do it.
About the Author
Kristal Farmer is the founder of Northern Range Strategies, where she advises utilities and infrastructure organizations on strategic communications, change communications, stakeholder engagement, and executive messaging. She brings more than 17 years of communications experience, including deep expertise in regulated environments where trust, clarity, and credibility matter most.