Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Energy

How Utility Customers Wind Up Paying to Serve Data Centers

A new paper from two Harvard researchers shows how these mega-users are disrupting the traditional regulatory structure.

A check and servers.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Who pays for a data center? The first answer is the investors and developers who are planning on pouring billions of dollars into building out power-hungry facilities to serve all sorts of internet services, especially artificial intelligence. And how much will it cost them? The numbers thrown around have a kind of casual gigantism that makes levelheaded evaluation difficult. $80 billion? $100 billion? $500 billion?

But while technology companies are paying for the chips and the systems that do the work of artificial intelligence, it may be normal people and businesses — homeowners, barbershops, schools — that end up paying for at least some of the electricity and system upgrades necessary to bring these facilities online.

That’s the argument made by Harvard Law School lecturer Ari Peskoe and Eliza Martin, a fellow at the school’s Environmental and Energy Law Program, of which Peskoe is a part. Their paper, published Thursday, is titled, “Extracting Profits from the Public: How Utility Ratepayers Are Paying for Big Tech’s Power.”

The core argument is this: The cost of maintaining and expanding the electricity distribution system is shared by all ratepayers — retail, business, and industrial — through a process governed by state public utility commissions. Utilities, meanwhile, have a legal mandate to serve everyone in their territory and a captive customer base of ratepayers, but they also compete among themselves for the business of energy-hungry customers, who can pick and choose where they set up shop. These customers often require new investment in grid infrastructure, which utilities pay for by asking state regulators to approve higher electricity rates — for everyone.

From there the conflict is clear: Utilities will want to attract big customers, and may sacrifice their retail customers in order to do so. And lately, with the AI boom booming, there are more of these big customers than at any other time in recent memory.

“Utilities’ narrow focus on expanding to serve a handful of big tech companies … breaks the mold of traditional utility rates that are premised on spreading the costs of beneficial system expansion to all ratepayers,” Peskoe and Martin write.

The traditional model of utility regulation is built on the premise that all ratepayers should pay for grid improvements, such as new transmission lines or substations, because all will benefit from them. This dynamic is disrupted, however, when it comes to customers demanding a gigawatt or more of power, the authors write. “The very same rate structures that have socialized the costs of reliable power delivery are now forcing the public to pay for infrastructure designed to supply a handful of exceedingly wealthy corporations,” the paper says.

“The assumption behind all this is that these are broadly beneficial projects that are going to benefit energy users generally,” Peskoe told me. “But I think that assumption is a bit out of date,” pointing to an example in Virginia of a $23 million grid infrastructure project retail customers paid for half of despite it being solely necessitated by the data center.

Peskoe and Martin set out an “alternative approach,” whereby data centers will power themselves — that is, outside of the utility system — and become a “formidable counterweight to utilities’ monopoly power.” In addition to being a more fair structure for the average customer, the authors also hope it will mark a “return to the pro-market advocacy that characterized the Big Tech’s power-sector lobbying efforts prior to the ChatGPT-inspired AI boom.”

While this approach would be a major challenge to almost a century of utility regulation, Peskoe and Martin also set out some more modest options, such as having state regulators “condition service to new data centers on a commitment to flexible operations.” That proposal cites research from Duke University — and featured previously in Heatmap — showing that a commitment by data centers to power down for a small portion of every year could allow utilities to avoid having to build billions of dollars worth of new infrastructure to serve the peak demand of the system.

The barrier to this approach is that utilities “have historically been hostile to regulatory attempts to require measures that would defer or avoid the need for costly infrastructure upgrades that drive utilities’ profits,” Peskoe and Martin argue. While the enormous investment in data centers is novel, Peskoe told me that the core issue of utilities using their captive ratepayers as a checkbook in order to pursue big fish customers is right at the heart of the utility playbook.

“A lot of this is baked into the utility business model,” Peskoe said. “The incentives to deploy capital and the ability to shift costs among consumer groups are unique to utilities.”

But just as utilities have a unique business model whereby investor-owned businesses are granted monopolies, they also have a unique regulatory structure. (Apple doesn’t have to go to a board appointed by a governor to get approval to hike the price of the iPhone.) This setup gives regulators unique powers — and unique responsibilities — to patrol and restrict utilities taking advantage of ratepayers, Peskoe said.

“Regulators can try to police this stuff. It's hard. But that's one of the goals of utility regulation, is to try to police these poorly designed incentives,” Peskoe said.

“None of the consequences are baked in, but some of the basic mechanisms and incentives are just inherent and not unique to data centers.” What is unique to data centers in this moment, Peskoe added, “is just the scale of this growth, and therefore the potential scale of these cost shifts.”

Green

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Climate Tech

Lunar Energy Raises $232 Million to Scale Virtual Power Plants

The startup — founded by the former head of Tesla Energy — is trying to solve a fundamental coordination problem on the grid.

A Lunar Energy module.
Heatmap Illustration/Lunar Energy

The concept of virtual power plants has been kicking around for decades. Coordinating a network of distributed energy resources — think solar panels, batteries, and smart appliances — to operate like a single power plant upends our notion of what grid-scale electricity generation can look like, not to mention the role individual consumers can play. But the idea only began taking slow, stuttering steps from theory to practice once homeowners started pairing rooftop solar with home batteries in the past decade.

Now, enthusiasm is accelerating as extreme weather, electricity load growth, and increased renewables penetration are straining the grid and interconnection queue. And the money is starting to pour in. Today, home battery manufacturer and VPP software company Lunar Energy announced $232 million in new funding — a $102 million Series D round, plus a previously unannounced $130 million Series C — to help deploy its integrated hardware and software systems across the U.S.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue
Adaptation

Why Driverless Cars Still Can’t Handle Snow

Black ice is dangerous, even for the robots.

A robotaxi in the snow.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

If all the snow and ice over the past week has you fed up, you might consider moving to San Francisco, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Austin, or Atlanta. These five cities receive little to no measurable snow in a given year; subtropical Atlanta technically gets the most — maybe a couple of inches per winter, though often none. Even this weekend’s bomb cyclone, which dumped 7 inches across parts of northeastern Georgia, left the Atlanta suburbs with too little accumulation even to make a snowman.

San Francisco and the aforementioned Sun Belt cities are also the five pilot locations of the all-electric autonomous-vehicle company Waymo. That’s no coincidence. “There is no commercial [automated driving] service operating in winter conditions or freezing rain,” Steven Waslander, a University of Toronto robotics professor who leads WinTOR, a research program aimed at extending the seasonality of self-driving cars, told me. “We don’t have it completely solved.”

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
AM Briefing

Courting a Win

On the FREEDOM Act, Siemens’ bet, and space data centers

Doug Burgum.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Current conditions: After a brief reprieve of temperatures hovering around freezing, the Northeast is bracing for a return to Arctic air and potential snow squalls at the end of the week • Cyclone Fytia’s death toll more than doubled to seven people in Madagascar as flooding continues • Temperatures in Mongolia are plunging below 0 degrees Fahrenheit for the rest of the workweek.

THE TOP FIVE

1. Interior Secretary suggests Supreme Court could step in to kill offshore wind

Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum suggested the Supreme Court could step in to overturn the Trump administration’s unbroken string of losses in all five cases where offshore wind developers challenged its attempts to halt construction on turbines. “I believe President Trump wants to kill the wind industry in America,” Fox Business News host Stuart Varney asked during Burgum’s appearance on Tuesday morning. “How are you going to do that when the courts are blocking it?” Burgum dismissed the rulings by what he called “court judges” who “were all at the district level,” and said “there’s always the possibility to keep moving that up through the chain.” Burgum — who, as my colleague Robinson Meyer noted last month, has been thrust into an ideological crisis over Trump’s actions toward Greenland — went on to reiterate the claims made in a Department of Defense report in December that sought to justify the halt to all construction on offshore turbines on the grounds that their operation could “create radar interference that could represent a tremendous threat off our highly populated northeast coast.” The issue isn’t new. The Obama administration put together a task force in 2011 to examine the problem of “radar clutter” from wind turbines. The Department of Energy found that there were ways to mitigate the issue, and promoted the development of next-generation radar that could see past turbines.

Keep reading...Show less
Red