As Data Centers for AI Strain the Power Grid, Bills Rise for Everyday Customers (msn.com)
- Reference: 0175379159
- News link: https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/24/11/02/0427238/as-data-centers-for-ai-strain-the-power-grid-bills-rise-for-everyday-customers
- Source link: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/as-data-centers-for-ai-strain-the-power-grid-bills-rise-for-everyday-customers/ar-AA1tk8tQ
> The facilities' [2]extraordinary demand for electricity to power and cool computers inside can drive up the price local utilities pay for energy and require significant improvements to electric grid transmission systems. As a result, costs have already begun going up for customers — or are about to in the near future, according to utility planning documents and energy industry analysts. Some regulators are concerned that the tech companies aren't paying their fair share, while leaving customers from homeowners to small businesses on the hook. In Oregon, electric utilities are warning regulators that consumers need protections from rising rates caused by data centers. From [3]Virginia to [4]Ohio and [5]South Carolina , companies are battling over the extent of their responsibility for increases, attempting to fend off [6]anger from customers. In the Mid-Atlantic, the regional power grid's energy costs [7]shot up dramatically, and data centers are cited as among root causes of rate increases of up to 20 percent expected in 2025...
>
> The [8]tech firms and several of the power companies serving them strongly deny they are burdening others. They say higher utility bills are paying for [9]overdue improvements to the power grid that benefit all customers. In some cases, they said in response to criticism from consumer and business advocates that they are committed to covering additional costs. But regulators — and even some utilities — are growing skeptical.
>
> A jarring example of fallout on consumers is playing out on the Mid-Atlantic regional power grid, called PJM Interconnection, which serves 13 states and D.C. The recent auction to secure power for the grid during periods of extreme weather and high demand resulted in an 800 percent jump in the price that the grid's member utilities had to pay. The impact will be felt by millions by the spring, according to public records. [10]Power bills will increase as much as 20 percent for customers of a dozen utilities in Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and West Virginia, regulatory filings show. That includes households in the Baltimore area, where annual bills will increase an average of $192, said Maryland People's Counsel David Lapp, a state appointee who monitors utilities. The next auction, in 2025, could be more painful, Lapp said, leaving customers potentially "looking at increases of as much as $40 to $50 a month...."
>
> Advocates cite another source of cost-shifting onto consumers: discounted rates that power companies and local government officials use to entice tech companies to build data centers... Google worked out a deal with Dominion Energy, blessed by regulators, to pay 6 cents per kilowatt hour for its power. That is less than half of what residential customers pay, as well as substantially less than is paid by businesses...
The article points out that in Pennsylvania, "Amazon's novel plan to fuel a data center from a reactor at the nearby Susquehanna nuclear plant is now in jeopardy, after regulators blocked it Friday. They cited potential impact on consumers as among their concerns. The plan threatens to leave other ratepayers stuck with a bill of $50 million to $140 million, according to testimony from [power utility] AEP and utility conglomerate Exelon."
And meanwhile, one Virginia retiree complained about a proposed $54 million transmission line and substation for an Amazon data center. "They are already making money hand over fist, and now they want us to pay for this?
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/as-data-centers-for-ai-strain-the-power-grid-bills-rise-for-everyday-customers/ar-AA1tk8tQ
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/10/08/google-meta-omaha-data-centers/?itid=lk_inline_manual_3
[3] https://www.pecva.org/region/loudoun/dominion-energy-integrated-resource-plan-projects-historic-rate-increases-for-virginia-ratepayers-while-subsidizing-the-worlds-wealthiest-companies/
[4] https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2024/09/12/guest-blog-connecting-data-centers-to-the-grid-an-innovative-and-controversial-proposal-from-aep-ohio/
[5] https://scdailygazette.com/2024/04/15/data-centers-need-massive-amounts-of-energy-what-does-that-mean-for-sc/
[6] https://scdailygazette.com/2024/09/12/protect-sc-consumers-from-data-center-costs/
[7] https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/073024-pjm-power-capacity-auction-clears-at-record-high-price-of-26992mw-day-for-most-of-footprint
[8] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/06/21/artificial-intelligence-nuclear-fusion-climate/
[9] https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/post-reports/get-ready-for-a-hot-ai-summer/
[10] https://www.utilitydive.com/news/states-power-supply-pjm-capacity-auction-firstenergy-data-center/731588/
Not one dime (Score:4, Insightful)
The tech firms should be paying for any and all of this work and a for a huge future cleanup and maintenance fund -- UP FRONT. Regulators should ensure that there is ZERO chance of anyone else getting stuck with the bill when this goes bust. And this still applies to "AI now" believers, since even if they are right, improvements in efficiency could still massively change the situation at some point.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Same with EVs.
Re: (Score:2)
Make it similar to a reclamation bond in mining. The data center pays up front for the new capacity, and the decommissioning and cleanup funds go into an escrow account. When the site gets scrapped or the company goes bankrupt the escrow account will cover the cost. If there is any left over it goes the creditors.
At one mine I worked at the power company did a cost share. They were sure the mine would be around long enough to amortize the investment, and they were right.
Mining the Commons (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just another example of how easy it is to "mine" common public services for profits. Instead of building a power plant, you buy a share of cheap existing public power and force everyone to pay for the additional power you will need.
This is not fixable in our current political system. We each get one vote to influence the selection of one member of congress. Those with money can spend unlimited amounts to influence the selection of all 435 members.
Crypto mining contributions. (Score:3, Interesting)
Lets not forget crypto mining. At least AI processing has some sort of intellectual benefit. I'm curious of the order of magnitude greater in which AI specific applications are using more energy compared to the total of crypto mining. That contribution can't be denied when putting the costs to the common folk for the excess infrastructure spending. Among many other things.
Re: (Score:3)
Personally, I don't give a da*n about AI OR crypto mining. Let the companies that came up with this sh*t and are profiting from it pay the costs for power upgrades.
Re: (Score:2)
> ...da*n about AI OR crypto mining. Let the companies that came up with this sh*t...
Shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits.
Sincerely,
George Carlin
Nuclear power and data centres (Score:2)
I can see some good reasons for siting data centers near nuclear power stations.
1) Data center power consumption is pretty constant, and nuclear power is well suited to constant loads. You can't just start and stop a reactor.
2) Nuclear plants are situated where there is abundant cooling water, that's good for data centers too
3) Nobody wants to live or work near a nuclear plant, that means lower land costs for building the data center and fewer nimbys.
4) Less cost installing h
Re: (Score:2)
There are very few places in the US with excess power available. Under high load, every area is pretty much maxed out or even over-subscribed. ALCOA used to build their own plants. Maybe its time datacenters did the same. If they choose to build nuclear, fine. If they choose to build solar/wind with batteries fine. But let the datacenter owner come up with the capital to build it.
Re: Nuclear power and data centres (Score:1)
The entire premise of the article is bogus, as you say, datacenters are rather fixed consumers and you know years in advance when you build them what you will need. The power grid is strained in certain places because governments run them in many places if not fully co-opt the private ones through regulations and so they canâ(TM)t build out.
Biden-Harris has been putting limits on new gas plants and attempting to backfill it with solar/wind that hasnâ(TM)t realized and never will be stable base loa
Cart before the horse (Score:4, Interesting)
In California, utilities are regulated. The rules dictate what the utilities can and can't do, with an eye toward trying to maintain stable prices at a benefit to consumers.
Unfortunately, because of how the rules are written... the utilities are incentivized in ways to make more money within that framework, rather than actually benefit consumers.
[1]https://www.nrdc.org/bio/jc-ki... [nrdc.org]
(the NRDC example uses Illinois, but from what I have gathered, California works in a very similar manner)
"Utilities can collect their spending on operating expenses from you and me, on our bills. In practice, they almost always cover their costs, but they don’t get anything extra beyond what they spent. So, if a utility spends $100 on operating expenses, it collects $100 back, spread out across all the bills people pay to that utility. They don’t profit.
But with capital expenses—that is, physical infrastructure, like poles and wires—utilities can collect the money they invested plus an additional percentage they keep as profit. So, if a utility spends $100 on capital expenses, they might collect $110 on our bills, with $100 paying for the wires and poles and $10 going towards profits..."
"...On the other hand, the only way utilities make profits is by spending money on physical infrastructure (e.g., poles and wires). The law says they should spend the least they can while providing quality, environmentally safe service, but when it comes to their bottom line, utilities are incentivized to make more costly investments. The more they spend on physical infrastructure, the more profit they stand to make..."
So yes, large data centers (as with any major industrial customer) buying electricity on the open market, has the potential of raising prices for residential users (and other industrial and commercial users). But the problem is not the datacenters. Any effort to re-industrialize America (and bring back jobs exported overseas) is going to to require energy. Hell, building more housing is going to require more energy. The problem is, the utilities are not incentivized to ever lower rates.
"...Here’s a hypothetical example that highlights the issue: several large new apartment buildings have been built in a neighborhood, so the area is now using more electricity than the local electric grid is able to provide. There are two ways to address this: one is a $50 million project that brings more power into the neighborhood by building new high-tension wires and new substations; the other is a $10 million project to reduce demand by implementing energy efficiency measures and installing batteries. For this example, let’s say the utility has a return on equity of 10%, meaning that they make a 10% profit on whatever they spend on capital expenses.
If the utility chooses to build the $10 million project, it would make $1 million in profit, and meet their public charge of providing “least-cost” service. But if it chooses the $50 million project, it will make $5 million in profit. They haven’t provided the “least-cost” solution, but they’ve made more money. Their shareholders will probably like this better, but it will also leave customers paying more than they should...."
I don't know if there's a way around this, absent reforming the regulations to incentivize behavior that leads to less expensive, more reliable power for all users, or allowing the formation of power companies that are not regulated, and can operate outside of the the existing regulatory structure. People/businesses who install their own batteries and solar panels, for example, are de-facto example of independent power companies, who can decide whether they want to to flow power back to the local utility, or pull power from the utility, depending on what makes sense. They also have the option of completely cutting ties with the local power utilit
[2]Read the rest of this comment...
[1] https://www.nrdc.org/bio/jc-kibbey/utility-accountability-101-how-do-utilities-make-money
[2] https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=23507557&cid=64914977
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding discounted rates:
"Advocates cite another source of cost-shifting onto consumers: discounted rates that power companies and local government officials use to entice tech companies to build data centers... Google worked out a deal with Dominion Energy, blessed by regulators, to pay 6 cents per kilowatt hour for its power. That is less than half of what residential customers pay, as well as substantially less than is paid by businesses... "
This sounds super fishy unless Google is underwriting the add
Re: (Score:3)
I also want to point out that just 7 years ago, the LA Times was running an article about a glut of power in California (and the corresponding rise in costs borne by ratepayers), due to overinvestment in new power generation facilities by regulated utilities...
[1]https://www.latimes.com/projec... [latimes.com]
"...California regulators have for years allowed power companies to go on a building spree, vastly expanding the potential electricity supply in the state. Indeed, even as electricity demand has fallen since 2008, Cali
[1] https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-electricity-capacity/
Re: (Score:2)
I have a 3 bedroom in the far Southeast of the same state, oil furnace, electric water heater and dryer. My bill was $97. It used to be just under $60 this time of year, and I use almost the same Kwh per month as when it was $60. Inflation and now DATA CENTERS? Ugh.
Granted it's no longer a full house and I live meagerly. Your price made me feel better, perhaps use some of those Biden IRA rebates to upgrade the house - oh wait our state doesn't have any of those rebates available yet until next Spring.
Re: My bill (Score:1)
I live in a modest 2-family, 3 and 5 bedrooms respectively, I rent out the other part, we are all-electric (25yo heat pumps, backup heat coils, electric cooktops & ovens, electric dryers etc a 1kW bitcoin rig) - we are straining at the 200A power supply but it is supplied by unregulated company from nearby nuclear (basically our electric company is owned by the homeowners in the area, you get a share according to your property) for the baseload of 2000kWh/month, beyond that gets backfilled by hydro, gas
Install home solar (Score:2)
Make money by selling the excess.
Thank goodness ... (Score:2)
... our state is moving to protect consumers' [1]right to access [knkx.org] alternative energy sources. Like natural gas.
[1] https://www.knkx.org/politics/2024-10-29/washington-voters-initiative-2066-state-laws-natural-gas-electrification-building-codes-carbon-emissions
Farm AI (Score:2)
Maybe it is time we learn to live with the seasons again. Much wind and solar energy? Let the datacenters run overtime. Train new models, run sheduled tasks that were low priority. High use, little green energy? Make the user pay a big premium.
Yes, that million dollar equipment will be idling a lot then... Yes, it will be more chaotic. Yes we will not get what we want instantly. The horror.
We already see this with Bitcoin Mining (Score:2)
Our electric rates are 60% higher after the BitCoin Bros showed up and started hoovering up as much power as they can get their hands on.
It's simple really:
Excessive energy use by a minority of users drives up demand for an already limited supply which increases rates.
False dichotomy (Score:3, Insightful)
What's your describing would crash the entire US economy. So yeah if you did like what the conspiracy theorists say and drove half the country back to the dark ages, in particular if you took electricity away from rural communities, then sure you could do what you're talking about.
And it would be completely foolish and unnecessary and counterproductive because we could just build out more wind and solar instead.
What you're trying to do is find a free market solution where there is none. That's why t
Re: (Score:1)
come on bro, a good faith reading would simply in your brain understand where they said "existed" when they mean "exists".
you can dislike and disagree with the guy but this is just bad faith pettiness
Re: (Score:2)
> Free market solutions need profit and lots of it and it has to be short-term.
The reason it has to be short-term is the risk of the government taxing or regulating your Great New Idea(tm) out of existence. This is especially true if your Great New Idea threatens the profitability of those who pay the government for protection from upstart new businesses (aka lobbying). You need to be sure of making your profit before there's time for this to happen.
Re: (Score:1)
That's not really where I was going with that. I'm merely contributing the point that the excessive use of energy with things like the energy used for nothing more then financial gain with regard to mining for profit is contributing to the over strain of the energy systems. That in addition to AI projects and other use cases. Things that don't necessarily provide a benefit to the most common folks day to day needs are not overly beneficial in the strictest sense. When common people are struggling to make
Re: (Score:2)
nothing false about the reality of classism nor corruption, if people can't see how bad it's because, people aren't looking
the complicit are blind to the problems they create
Re: (Score:2)
There's two issues: The carbon released in the generation of the electricity, and the destructive potential of the "heat pulse" of consuming it too quickly (call it "shock cost"). We still haven't addressed carbon. We do need to eventually address shock cost. GHG emission creates the condition for rapid environmental heating, and then actual heat release produces the disastrous effect. You definitely want to address the first one first, for obvious logical reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
nobody gives a damn is right, all greedy and entitled people care about is having more and more because they appreciate it all less and less
hoarding is pathological, classism is rooted in mental illness, our leaders are totally addicted to affluence and power
money is power, power corrupts and our governments are all completely corrupted by self-interest, welcome to our corporatocracy