The Fight

Sign In or Create an Account.

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

Q&A

Someone Has to Invest in the Grid. Why Not Data Centers?

A conversation with Searchlight Institute's Jane Flegal about America’s aging grid

Jane Flegal.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s conversation is with Jane Flegal, esteemed energy wonk extraordinaire and friend of Heatmap News. I reached out to Jane because she recently authored a paper for a think tank – the Searchlight Institute – focused on how to try and get transmission built to satisfy growing electricity demand without creating the cost pain points that foment discontent on the ground. Y’know, how to avoid the sorts of frustrations we chronicle here at The Fight! So ahead of reporting on transmission conflicts I have coming up next week, it made sense to have a candid conversation about just how hard all of this is.

The following transcript was lightly edited for clarity.

How much of this transmission build-out needed is because of data centers?

We have underinvested in the kind of transmission and grid infrastructure that we need to grow the grid and power basically anything new. We’re seeing regulators and reliability analysts flagging some major concerns. Beyond investing in new capacity, we’re just at the 50-60 year point in an infrastructure and investment cycle. A lot of what we have was built in the 1960s and 1970s. Even if we didn’t grow the grid, there would be significant investment required in our existing infrastructure just to maintain and fix it.

I actually think even if data centers were not on the horizon at all, there would be real concerns about who and how to pay for reinvestment into the grid. The question of what this growth requires for the grid, most of the analysis mapping out what we need to do to decarbonize is that we’ll need to 2x or 3x the grid to electrify everything.

When you drill down into it, the utilities were going to need to build some of this stuff anyway. There was going to have to be huge transmission and distribution investments, regardless of data center load growth. Wildfire hardening in the West. There’s deferred maintenance coming due.

It’s also true we did not anticipate the quality of demand data centers represent and it’s so sudden and so big. The demand is so centralized. It’s a different shape of demand for what we expected for electric vehicle infrastructure, for example. It’s unique.

Then there’s the question of what’s attributable to this kind of large load growth. What’s the incremental investment that wouldn’t have been made but for these data centers? If it’s a big new transmission corridor to reach a data center campus, we don’t necessarily want those things to be socialized across the rate base. So you see multi-billion dollar transmission plans in some states where the utility or a state government will say this is due to data center demand, so it’s hard to separate those things entirely.

But what I find frustrating about the affordability conversations is these are investments we would need to make anyway and/or would be societally useful even if the data center doesn’t materialize. Not to mention that we haven’t totally figured out how to deal with that! If the assumption is that no new infrastructure is good or desirable, that’s not good. That’s bad.

The question is, who pays? Funding things through the rate base is super regressive. Electric bills represent a higher share of low-income earners’ income and so it's not a good way to fund big things. A meta question is, who should be paying for all this stuff? The data centers should pay for what they created and are demanding.

It feels like what you’re getting at here is the need for some financing backstop to blunt the impact on ratepayers. The local folks, people who don’t see how transmission will make their lives easier.

I think what I’m trying to resolve is, you need to have a mechanism to make needed investment in transmission infrastructure investable without socializing all of the cost.

Right now we’re in a lucky position because we have large customers with capital and a willingness to spend it for speed-to-power. They can help on this front both by engaging in take-or-pay commitments where they commit legally to being the offtaker and by doing up-front financing themselves in the transmission. This is a real challenge though, which is why I was trying to think creatively.

As you said, transmission investment if planned well and permitted on time can make things cheaper and more stable over time. But the investment has to happen and be paid for somehow. This has always been an issue.

I was speaking with an environmentalist in Virginia earlier this week about transmission. This is someone who doesn’t want to build a lot more transmission explicitly for data centers. So I raised the question of, weren’t we just talking about how we need more transmission for the climate? Why are you against these projects then? And what this person said was that the transmission for data centers was eating up utility funding that could go to renewable energy and could power other demand sources.

Is the question that utilities are spending on this stuff to satisfy data center demand and therefore won’t be investing in projects to power our lives? Or is it more complicated?

It’s a fair concern here and it goes back to our planning processes. If you build a transmission corridor for a data center in Virginia, that's different from a high-voltage line from the wind farms in the West to load centers in Chicago. I see what they’re saying. But the truth is the U.S. needs dramatically more transmission for electrification no matter what. The grid cannot accommodate the decarbonization required and we can’t move power from the best resource centers to load centers. That was all needed before the hyperscalers started building.

The data center build-out is an accelerant bringing forward all this investment that is already needed. If it is planned correctly it can help electrification goals simultaneously. And the “if planned correctly” part does a lot of work.

But are tech companies investing in the transmission?

They certainly are. But it's another area where we haven’t made it particularly easy for them to do that. They’ve committed to spending quite a lot of money on infrastructure but most of it is not grid. Google is investing for example into advanced conductors onto the grid, which is a shared investment that’ll benefit the public. To date however, most of the hyperscale investment is the requirements for their own load, not system contribution. That’s what I was trying to propose in my paper.

Voluntary pledges are not going to be enough. But can you get a state to condition tax benefits for data centers on a set of conditions, like dedicated capacity payments. Ideally some mechanism to invest in the broader grid. It’s a big ask of them though, it's worth saying.

Right now the barrier is we can’t plan and permit the lines to begin with, so there’s nothing for them to invest in, and my biggest concern is them just going behind-the-meter.

I think the thing that’s important here is that there’s a set of questions around what data centers can do directly with their capital and a set of questions around the policy and regulatory agenda for the grid. What I’d say is we’re having an active debate on the Hill right now about federal permitting and as a part of that conversation, we're talking about transmission. We’ve tried to do a better job at this and repeatedly failed, partially due to opposition from utilities and states at a time of flat or declining demand.

That is changing; we have large, powerful customers with a lot of money and political power who can advocate for the permitting reform we need to solve structural issues here. I think now is the moment where we have the political coalition to do this. We were never going to solve this by having climate advocates yell at FERC.

Yellow

This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.

Go deeper inside the politics, projects, and personalities
shaping the energy transition.
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
Spotlight

The Real vs. Imagined Problems with Data Centers’ Water Use

How much water is too much?

Water, a data center, and a protester.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The data center water issues are real – but they aren’t what you think.

Too often, I hear people say the number one reason they’re against data center development is water use. Heatmap’s data shows water consumption is historically the reason cited most often by activists when opposing projects. This complaint, they often say, is rooted in the fear that this nascent buildout of AI infrastructure will simply draw so much H2O it will leave little liquid left for the rest of us.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

Texas Is the Eye of the Bipartisan Data Center Hurricane

And more of this week’s biggest news around project fights.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Matagorda County, Texas – The bipartisan data center backlash is now so powerful that a top Republican Texas state official is doing an event with the Democrat vying to replace him.

  • On Thursday afternoon, outgoing Republican agriculture commissioner Sid Miller and Democratic candidate Clayton Tucker are marqueeing a forum hosted by Matagorda County Against Data Centers, an opposition group that appears to also monitor solar and battery storage for potential opposition, too. Miller is leaving his post at the end of the year after being defeated in a GOP primary by Nate Sheets, who was supported by Gov. Greg Abbott.
  • This bipartisan forum will take place after Abbott himself called for new laws and regulations on data centers in a letter to Texas Public Utility Commission Chair Thomas Gleeson and ERCOT CEO Pablo Vegas. Abbott said he’d push to require data centers to pay costs for electric infrastructure and use “water-efficient technologies such as closed-loop cooling systems.” Also on the to-do list? Mandatory property setbacks and noise reduction.
  • It’s becoming clear the frustrations against AI infrastructure and associated energy projects are starting to boil without a vent. The first county to issue a data center moratorium in Texas has withdrawn the effort after facing a $100 million lawsuit from a developer, and other counties are delaying future moratoria on fears of legal risks. Where will all of this frustration go without the option to pause development locally?
  • We’re starting to see Texas legislators seek to channel this anger. Last week, Rep. Veronica Escobar – a Democrat who represents the dry, data center-anxious city of El Paso – offered an amendment in a House committee to block funding for the EPA’s new data center construction rules. The amendment failed but I’d hardly be surprised to see this sort of rider gain traction if Democrats retake the lower chamber, especially if data centers are a major election issue.

2. Albany County, New York – As we await Gov. Kathy Hochul’s decision on whether to enact the nation’s first statewide moratorium on data centers, I wanted to bring up some pretty crucial facts about the situation in the Empire State.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Q&A

One Investor’s Climate ‘Realism’ In the Data Center Era

A conversation with Craig Lawrence of Energy Transition Ventures

The Q&A subject.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s conversation is one of my favorites so far – Craig Lawrence of Energy Transition Ventures. Lawrence has been around the block and back again when it comes to the cleantech investment landscape. So I took note when he got into a brief back-and-forth with an activist fighting data centers in Indiana who claimed there were “so many clean energy people who no longer care about climate change” because they “now support fossil fuel data centers if some nominal amount is met with clean energy.”

Lawrence replied, “Some of us are simply realists.”

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow