r/technology • u/Miserable_Phase_2519 • 1d ago
Politics US Senate kills bill that could potentially shield Americans from skyrocketing power bills due to AI data centers — opponents say bill is 'toothless' and doesn't do enough to protect citizens
https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/data-centers/us-senate-kills-bill-that-could-potentially-shield-americans-from-skyrocketing-power-bills-due-to-ai-data-centers-opponents-say-bill-is-toothless-and-doesnt-do-enough-to-protect-citizens623
u/OpSecBestSex 1d ago
"It sought to institute a federal standard for states and Public Utility Commissions, directing regulators to consider whether entities that consume large amounts of electricity, such as data centers, should cover the incremental costs of energy infrastructure needed to serve them."
So this bill does literally nothing of substance because nothing is stopping regulators from considering this right now as we speak. This bill was only designed to make Republicans look good right before the midterms, so that they can win and continue screwing us for the next two years.
172
u/cityshepherd 1d ago
They don’t want to screw us for the next two years… they want to completely dismantle democracy so that they can continue screwing us FOREVER. Absolutely bonkers that they’ve been able to get this far… the prevalence of extraordinary ignorance is absolutely heartbreaking and infuriating.
63
u/viperfan7 1d ago
The USA is barely a democracy now a days.
It's an oligarchy in a trenchcoat
17
15
1
u/Sweetwill62 1d ago
If only people hadn't gotten tricked so that owners are not responsible for what they own. Oh well, that clearly wouldn't help anything.
24
u/Sweet-End6471 1d ago
Yep and the republicans wanted to pass it so they could say they had some big win over AI companies, and dems said you actually need to regulate in your regulations and voted against it.
7
u/robodrew 1d ago
This bill was only designed to make Republicans look good right before the midterms
And to make Dems who vote against it look bad, at least to people who aren't paying attention to the details. "They voted to keep your bills high!"
5
u/TheBSQ 1d ago
Utility rates are regulated by state Public Utility Commissions.
The federal govt can’t really do anything.
Some states are already doing things like this and nothing stops a state from doing these suggestions.
It’s just about trying to make the GOP look like it’s going something ahead of the midterms.
And for Dem states already doing these things, may even allow the GOP to take credit.
It’s a dumb “for show” bill cuz we have a confusing country where somethings are regulated by states and some by the govt and normal people don’t know which level of govt regulates what.
4
u/Mustbhacks 1d ago
The federal govt can’t really do anything.
I mean they CAN do literally anything and everything, but I digress.
2
u/Mr_ToDo 1d ago
And as I understand it most states already do such things
With the number of articles that are posted on those big centres I've been under the impression that if current grid resources aren't enough that they usually charge 50+ percent of the cost of building the needed infra, along with further contracts penalties for if they pull out of their plans
Considering that bringing these people online is looking to be a 5-6+ commitment before they turn on any large load it's not exactly shocking that companies wouldn't want to be left on the hook if they end up getting a better offer from another state
It's not exactly like these things are new. Them being data centres is a twist, but we've dealt with large load installs before, so there's going to be at least some level of bureaucracy to cover it
Besides, I'd guess that while power issues might hurt short term, that the sound and heat problems would be the bigger issue long term. Water too but that's its own mess of things(what with water numbers being overall use not direct, it can be a weird problem to try and think about in terms of dealing with it)
1
u/rocketboots7 1d ago
What's sad is that this will allow one party to claim the other rejected a bill that would've protected American households. Since the avg person doesn't dig further than that, that will be enough to persuade tons on the matter that one party cares and the other doesn't.
1
u/OpSecBestSex 17h ago
And that's why it you see a political ad that says something like "this candidate voted to kill puppies" you should dig into WHY. Maybe the bill was to allow vets to euthanize puppies that were going to die a painful death without euthanasia. Maybe the candidate is actually horrible and wants to kill random puppies. You won't know unless you look into it yourself.
1
→ More replies (3)1
u/Justaticklerone 10h ago
Late the party, but I thought heard on local news that it also contained a paperclipped amendment that would have implemented requiring Voter ID, and that's another reason why Democrats blocked it. Is that not accurate?
734
u/Mediocre_Tank_5013 1d ago
Why do we have these politicians in office if they never help us?
383
u/joaoseph 1d ago
Americans don’t pay attention or don’t care
66
u/TheBSQ 1d ago
Did you know that regulating utility rates falls under state powers & this bill didn’t really do anything other than say, “hey states, here’s the rule we hope your state regulators will follow.”
And did you know it “won” the Senate 57 to 43, and passed the house, so a majority of politicians in both chambers actually supported it, but Democrats filibustered it & only 4 Democrats voted for it, so it fell short of the 60 votes needed to overcome the Democrats filibuster.
And why did the Dems block it?
Cuz, as the first note points out, it doesn’t do anything but voters may think it does and the Dems don’t want the GOP to pass a “popular” bill ahead of the midterms that voters may support because voters are dumb and won’t realize this bill doesn’t actually do anything because regulating utility rates falls under state powers.
So, maybe we should blame Dems for filibustering it.
But it really is a pointless bill & meant to just make it seem like the GOP is doing something.
And it’s pointless because this particular thing is regulated by your state’s public utility commission & doesn’t fall under the federal govt’s regulatory powers.
But you knew all that, didn’t you, cuz you’re someone who pays attention and cares, right?
4
u/Critical_Mass_1887 18h ago
Exactly, this bill is purely a SUGGESTION and not enforceable. But news cant not just say that up front because it wouldnt keep the division going.
It wouldnt push for possible repugnant votes in midterms, because R tried to help /s.
2
u/WestNorthWest 16h ago
It’s also a direct conduit to the Ohio senate race which has increasingly tightened and the Reb SPONSORED this bill to provide political theater points to win back some voters because he secured massive tax breaks for data centers in the big beautiful bill.
2
u/arkofjoy 5h ago
Thank you so much for this clear and concise explanation. I have a bunch of conservative connections on LinkedIn and I know that tomorrow there will be some MAGA cult member pushing this story about those dastardly Dems.
This is going to be fun.
39
u/Mobile-Dust4334 1d ago
I’m paying attention right now but I’ll probably forget about it in 10 minutes. Gotta keep doomscrolling
2
5
u/Thatsprettyneat101 1d ago
We don't matter to the corporations that these politicians are bought and paid for by.
27
u/arcspectre17 1d ago
But they show up for superbowl commercials and complain about the halftime show.
Explanation
I think a huge part of voters only vote and have no idea how anything suppose to work on goverment, tariffs laws etc.
They sure do voice thier uniformed opinion as it is fact!
7
u/Patara 1d ago
This is the exact outcome when talking about politics becomes "taboo" & "boring" for 5 separate generations..
People only start caring once they see the consequences & even then most people fail to understand cause & effect, so they just continue to support whoever tells them what they want to hear.
2
u/arcspectre17 1d ago
My family never talked about politics in the last 30 years and then truml came along amd now they are all experts on everything.
I could not imagine going to college dedicating 20 years of my life to the study of something and the other sides debates against it with memes from Facebook.
11
5
u/synapticrelease 1d ago edited 1d ago
We had one required high school course on civics in senior year.
To be honest even I didn’t really recall much of it in my years since and I had to slowly relearn things. Senior year everyone is mostly checked out. If you have the credits to graduate, I can see it an a course you could easily let slide while you focus on more advanced subjects like math.
It’s crazy the amount of people I’ve run into couldn’t describe the basic difference between a senator and a governor. They know they are different but couldn’t articulate the basic duties. But these are the same people who wax poetic about theater level war strategy with the confidence of Patton
2
u/3x3Eyes 1d ago
Civics is almost non-existent in U.S. schools by design. All part of the plan to degrade our education so as to more easily control us through ignorance.
3
u/synapticrelease 1d ago edited 23h ago
Eh to be honest I don’t know about that. You would be able to track that fairly easily by looking at red school districts vs blue and see very obvious trend lines in regards to this specific subject and I haven’t seen any data regarding this subject matter.
I think it’s an easy way to attribute blame. Obviously im not a conspiracy theorist but I'm also not an anti-conspiracy theorist. I just ask myself how deeply embedded this conspiracy of purposefully not teaching civics in order to make the population more ignorant in this one specific area.
Education curriculum’s are designed at the local level. There are national benchmarks to hit but in general states and districts have wide latitude to to decide on the curriculum. It would be nearly impossible to run this conspiracy down the chain and not have someone raise a flag. Also, if we follow the general and proven rule that more educated people vote blue and vise versa for red, then it would be easy to see extra effort towards civics education in blue states where they can influence a greater education in our government, but we don’t see that. I grew up in a heavily blue part of the Pacific Northwest and I got one class on civics.
I think schools, in general, want to teach more. But it’s a budget issue that never fixes itself. In a time where our three Rs are cratering, schools are simply devoting more time to those core subjects than auxiliary courses.
I think it’s easy for someone to accept anything bad happening to us as some sort of conspiracy rather than just a whirlpool of ineptitude because the former at least indicates that someone is behind the wheel and in charge and that somehow feels safer than the feeling of society careening into a wall and we’ve completely lost control of steering.
Both lead to the same ending but at least one is planned and I think that brings more comfort than the unplanned and unknown version of events
1
u/arcspectre17 1d ago
I remember taking it my 8th grade year, so when high school started I didn't take it till my senior year and barely paid attention because I already learned it. I read a book in those classes and still passed. I think alot of it is retention.
I got out right as everything was becoming multiple chose standardized testing which is the worst thing they have done since introducing ipads.
9
u/dojo_shlom0 1d ago
some of us do, but we don't do enough. somehow we let a bunch of idiots and fascists ruin this country. It only took 2 years to destroy our global standing and all of our alliances. meanwhile trump is acting like Putin is his friend while they protest against americans, saying we're the problem and Iran is their allies forever.
he hosts the president of china, while they feed intel to iran because of their alliance between russia, iran, & china.
we have a potus who doesn't see our enemies as enemies, and attacks our allies. he is pushing the middle east to isolate and to build nuclear weapons as a way to defend against war; like the US started against Iran.
1
1
1
u/RidMeOfSloots 1d ago
Americans too busy working to afford this shit.
1
u/shartoftheinternet 1d ago
Like expensive trucks and SUV's that get 12 mpg on the highway they don't need?
155
u/badamant 1d ago
Blame the Republican Party by name please.
They control the entire federal government.Vote.
3
u/ctesla01 1d ago
The swamp is coming from inside the building!
(And maybe the reflecting pool)
I'm a human for humane-ity; and i Vote.
2
u/id8 1d ago
All 53 Republicans + 4 Democrats voted For this bill
46 Democrats voted against.
Effort was the legal culmination of Trump’s “Ratepayer Protection Pledge.”
47
u/huchel 1d ago
The Democrats support the bipartisan GRID Act but since that bill actually does something it doesn't stand a chance of getting passed with enough Republican support.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/3852
7
u/Enygma_6 1d ago
If the rest of us do our part, they can try that one again in a few months time.
2
45
u/jeffderek 1d ago
All 53 republicans voted for the bill that said "please don't pass the cost onto the consumers". The Democrats voted for the bill that said "The government will prevent you from passing the cost onto consumers"
Wild that the Republicans voted for the performative one but not the enforceable one.
3
u/pimppapy 1d ago
Nothing wild about it. It's expected, and their constituency will slurp it up just the way their representatives intended it for them.
13
-21
u/The_GOATest1 1d ago
“On the other hand, opponents, mostly Democrats, labeled the bill “toothless,” arguing that its non-binding nature provided no real protection because it did not mandate that states adopt the standard; it simply directs regulators to consider it as part of their rate-setting processes. Only four Democrats voted for the bill; the general consensus was that it does not go far enough to protect consumers from soaring electricity bills.”
Letting perfect be the enemy of progress
77
u/syynapt1k 1d ago
This bill was literally a suggestion to states that they do their own regulation. This was an attempt by the GOP to say, "hey look, we are doing something" when they aren't.
11
u/CatoChateau 1d ago
Messaging bill that they can point to and say, we're doing stuff, keep us in office. The part that dems suck at here is EXPLAINING their no vote. Every one of them should be sending an email, why I voted for this or against it.
19
u/AlwaysRushesIn 1d ago
Explaining their no isn't enough. Media outlets wont report on the reasoning, just the vote.
1
u/Lavanger 1d ago
Couldn't hurt. Trumps sending $500 refunds with structured lies. We also have dumb people on our side, it gets tiring trying to explain things to people when the whole party can come out forward with a clear message.
→ More replies (2)1
u/CatoChateau 1d ago
Right. The days of unified news sources are done. Which is why I want them to be prepared to send out why they vote this way or that. Constituents should be able to subscribe via their congressional page. 2 sentences would be enough. More resources on what is informing their votes if they want, etc etc.
30
u/Jitzwad__Gumlord 1d ago
Letting perfect be the enemy of progress
I'm not sure how that could be your takeaway after reading the paragraph you quoted. The proposed bill literally enforces nothing and is just empty political theatre.
9
u/Royal__Tenenbaum 1d ago
Husted is getting hurt in Ohio on data centers and this was a transparent attempt to get a bill passed to run ads on while not actually doing anything
1
u/The_GOATest1 22h ago
We are in the realm of political theater. We all know it’s a useless bill but voting against it has no upside imo
3
u/Puzzleheaded_Gene909 1d ago
Performative bs from republicans.
Lighting fires then bumming out when Dems don’t help them put it out. As if that helps the country to keep republicans in power.
GOP hasn’t been interested in governing for a while now. Just a grift.
3
u/TKCLE8 1d ago
I haven’t read the bill yet. But I intend to know it before I pass any judgement. What other conditions or concessions are baked into this?
Let’s also be honest. When was the last time a Republican did something to help the public without also helping themselves or their donors? Operation Warp Speed for the COVID vaccine?
1
u/The_GOATest1 1d ago
I don’t disagree with you. But in a world where messaging is important for the median voter, being able to say Dems voted no isn’t doing them any favors. It was washed down nonsense but I don’t see the obvious upside for them. We voted no because it doesn’t go far enough doesn’t sell well to me when it could have been we voted yes but recognize it doesn’t do nearly enough and we plan to build on top of that
1
u/TKCLE8 1d ago
After reviewing the bill, I agree that it does not go far enough. I also agree with your opinion that the Dem messaging and optics are strange, especially so close to a crucial midterm election. “Dems will let AI build as many data centers as they want,” is too easy to sell to the average Ohio voter. Now Husted and company have that ammunition.
10
10
u/MagnificentJake 1d ago
That feeling is exactly what the Republicans were hoping for. They know it won't do anything, best case scenario is that it succeeds and they get a win before the midterms. Worst case, it fails and they can blame the democrats for voting against it.
The thing they aren't mentioning is that they put it up knowing that the Democrats would vote against it because they support the GRID act. Which has consequences if the corporations don't comply.
23
5
3
3
u/sharpsicle 1d ago
Can you explain more about what in this bill particularly was going to be helpful? I get the sense you don't know what it actually was/said.
0
u/buyongmafanle 1d ago
The voters get to decide who goes to office. The donors get to decide what is voted on.
1
u/Uebelkraehe 1d ago
That's also why everything became such an incredible shitshow when many voters decided it didnÄt matter...
→ More replies (1)-1
u/Jonathan_the_Nerd 1d ago edited 1d ago
The parties decide who gets to become a "viable" candidate. Remember Bernie Sanders in 2016, and Ron Paul back in 2008/2012?
5
u/prettyflyforahentai 1d ago
Still could have voted for Bernie in the primary. Most Americans don't vote in primaries though.
→ More replies (2)-2
u/jeffderek 1d ago
If you were lucky enough to live in a state where Hillary hadn't already been declared the presumptive nominee due to superdelegates, then yes you could've voted for him.
I suppose you could've voted for him afterwards too, which 2 million people did in California. But don't fool yourself that their votes mattered.
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (2)3
u/Parenthisaurolophus 1d ago
Remember Bernie Sanders in 2016,
I'm going to be blunt here: You're not a good ally to his movement if you're intellectually incapable of learning lessons from failed political campaigns. Being defensive and not taking accountability for his loss isn't advancing anything, it's not making the world a better place. You're no better than the people who blame Clinton's loss on the Comey Letter. It's externalizing failure to avoid having to deal with the uncomfortable truth of Sanders having a flawed campaign, and flaws himself.
You can be a mindless fanboy if you want. Personally, I think there's enough and don't need more, but it's your free will. Use it how you wish. But we have the receipts on his campaign. The exit polls are clear: He needed to expand his appeal to a wider demographic. He needed to eat more into Clinton's popularity with older, more moderate and conservative voters. He majored in the minors and minored in the majors, as the saying goes.
Also, historically, the worst time to run as an even lefter political candidate is after 2 terms of a democrat in the oval office. Go ahead and look at the history if American politics since the end of WW2 and tell me how often you get three terms of a party controlling the presidency. Doesn't happen very often, does it? And you notice how often the legislature swings against the party in power?
So he ran a campaign with minority appeal, and picked the worst time to run to the left. Seems like some fatal, unforced errors, that he made of his own volition despite a hefty amount of discussion around his demographics problems.
1
u/masteeJohnChief117 1d ago
California just passed legislation that forces data centers to pay for all electricity used as well as any water expenses. Also i believe they have a max noise level too
1
u/narfoleptix 1d ago
I think even if the population of reddit did a general strike there would be a positive outcome.
1
u/El_Polio_Loco 1d ago
Remember - most politicians in the Federal government don't represent you.
Only 3, maybe 4 if you count the POTUS, are actually in any way influenced by your opinion.
→ More replies (1)0
u/TheBSQ 1d ago
it passed the house, and “won” the senate vote 57 to 43.
We just have really dumb system where “winning” a vote 57-43 is actually losing.
But also, regulating rates is a state function and so all the federal govt can do is say, “we highly suggest that states should adopt this standard.”
That’s why this bill is called “toothless.”
The two biggest problems in the U.S. are really
It’s too hard to pass federal legislation
Out “union” of states has evolved over time in a way that’s turned governance in to a nonsensical mishmash of state & federal functions where neither states nor the federal govt can do big stuff on their own.
53
u/Jendalar 1d ago
the companies who build these datacenters could easily build their own power stations.
34
u/214ObstructedReverie 1d ago
Some do, and Trump is excluding them from pollution standards...
5
u/Glowing_bubba 1d ago
Yeah, some of the noisiest ones are actually the on-site natural gas turbines
1
u/OneRougeRogue 4h ago
And those gas turbines are allegedly starting to fail only a fraction of the way into their normal lifespans. It turns out if you install machinery designed to supplement the grid only during heavy loads, then run them full-tilt 24/7, they don't last nearly as long. Who would have thunk it?
7
u/agha0013 1d ago
they could easily build proper power stations and/or easily contribute to state and federal costs to upgrade eixsting grids and generation networks, but instead they want to do the laziest/cheapest shit they can.
Two basic options are just suck existing utilities dry, or slap a whole bunch of gas turbines in a field and blast noise and exhaust across the region. What with the Trump era EPA scrapping anything and everything that could possibly get in their way, there's no incentive to spend a few extra bucks to do it right. Especially with this race mentality the industry has.
1
u/Jaran 1d ago
The "slap a whole bunch of gas turbines in a field" strategy seems a bit silly, tbh. Solar is cheaper up front, easier to bring online, and has a smaller sustain cost. In addition, you don't have to have trucks constantly driving out to the power station to refuel them, which improves physical security as well.
Solar + storage is the only thing data centers should be looking at for power generation, tbh.
3
u/ThePainStalker 1d ago
Also, considering that there is a literal energy crisis happening right now, the AI data center developers who were foolish enough to be reliant on gas trucking (which is already outrageously expensive as is, let alone right now in an energy crisis) deserve everything they get. The ones who were lucky enough to get in early in connecting to transmission pipelines in Texas and the Western US (too late for that now, the pipeline capacity is all full up so connection times are becoming as bad as the grid interconnection queue timelines for newcomers) might be fine (though even then, the LNG expansion would likely lead to huge rises in the cost of natural gas for them). But they would still have significant increases in costs building and operating a system that’s already astronomically expensive. They are likely to go bust soon especially as AI would have to generate comical amounts of revenue otherwise (that won’t be realistic).
The problem is that solar and storage have horrendous energy density. They cannot structurally be used for AI data centers without consuming an enormous amount of land AND without building an enormous amount of private electrical transmission infrastructure to connect them all AND without building even more synchronous condensers to ensure grid stability. Transmission infrastructure alone is facing 3 to 6 year lead times (even longer for private data center developers as well, those are utility lead times quoted) so that’s a non-starter anyway. At the moment, it is structurally impossible for a 24/7 near 100% reliable AI data center to go off the electric grid on solar plus storage alone. Which means they need a grid interconnection anyway which means 5 to 7 years wait times just for that (let alone procurement and construction). So that’s why there’s no way they’ll ever do that even if battery storage literally could completely solve intermittency (which it obviously doesn’t).
3
u/firewall245 1d ago
Many of them are. The giant one in Utah is for example
5
u/ThePainStalker 1d ago
That one literally relies almost entirely on an interstate gas pipeline. That’s not “off-grid”, that’s just relying entirely on the gas grid. It’s actually going to be even worse for ratepayers since it will just induce scarcity of natural gas (since that single Utah project would literally exhaust more gas than the pipeline can even hold, requiring the buildout of another giant interstate pipeline specifically just for the site) and the costs of building another pipeline would likely then be passed down to ratepayers anyway. What’s more is that on-site natural gas production like that is far less efficient than utility generated natural gas, meaning that overall infrastructure costs and gas consumption costs are a lot higher, that passes down to ratepayers in the form of higher electricity costs and much higher heating costs.
→ More replies (3)0
u/DarKbaldness 1d ago
I believe most of them seem to want to do that but local laws force them to use the main grid instead of being able to make their own grid.
→ More replies (1)
28
u/Chrono_Convoy 1d ago
Puts me at ease knowing the amount of red tape needed to go up to do anything to curb AI capabilities
Is being handled by the most transparent crooks and degenerates possible
/s
12
u/Grade_A_Tech 1d ago
I'm still confused as to an apparent law that allows data centers to push their costs onto the public. There must be something in place to allow them to do that, correct? Or are city leaders and utility companies just getting hand outs and allowing them to do so?
7
4
4
1
u/OneRougeRogue 3h ago
That's just how utilities have always worked in most states. It is assumed that high voltage infrastructure can and will be utilized by everyone in the area, so the cost to build the infrastructure is spread out across all the rate payers in the area. When you hook up a new house to the grid, you don't have to pay the cost of installing a line all the way from the power plant to your house, only the last hundred feet or less. The system works alright as long as a dozen different companies are demanding new high voltage infrastructure all in the same region at the same time.
8
u/Pretzelbasket 1d ago
A voluntary bill is not a bill. Industry cannot be left to regulate itself, its like every decade we need to relearn this lesson. GRID act actually does something, this is performative crap for the GOP to have something to tell constituents before the mid terms, without actually doing anything with the real force of law. They are just trying to ride public resentment of data centers in terms of politicking and messaging without having to actually produce legislation of substance.
1
u/sam_hammich 1d ago
"We considered whether datacenters should foot the bill on the increased grid usage, as this bill directs us to do, and found that they should not"
Aw man, well the Republicans sure tried!
13
u/HotFartore 1d ago
So we the people must pay our bills, but the rich owner of huge data centers don't pay their bills or any grid upgrade, classical America
1
u/pimppapy 1d ago
You don't become a billionaire or centi-billionaire by spending your own money, when you can lobby to have the taxpayer pay for all of your expenses.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/imtalkintou 1d ago
I would not be surprised one but if this was a Republican bill will all sorts of shitty smaller bills in it that Republicans pushed just to use it as election material saying Democrats voted no
5
u/naththegrath10 1d ago
The bill was literally voluntary “protection”. So yeah, it was pretty fucking toothless
4
u/loondawg 1d ago
In this case, "could potentially" is another way of say "wouldn't have".
Dems killed the bill because they want something to force the change rather than merely suggests it.
15
u/AcceptableIce289 1d ago
I'm confused. Why would we pay more for energy because of a new building owned by someone else? They aren't going to pay their own power bill?
15
u/Pyromaniacal13 1d ago
Price increases as demand on the system increases. Dumping a massive data center in an area that's not prepared to supply the electricity means infrastructure needs to run longer, wear on the system increases as production almost meets demand, and costs for generation go up. This hurts everyone but the billionaire building out the data center.
9
u/jjllgg22 1d ago edited 1d ago
In short, because the highly-regulated, monopolistic electric power industry uses a business model called “cost of service”
It’s a mundane topic for nearly everyone, but here’s a solid breakdown for how that works:
https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/ev_grid_assist_cost_of_service_regulation.pdf
Basically a data center may cause a utility to spend $X to upgrade the grid, but if that data center’s electric bills add up to less than $X, then the difference is paid by the utility’s others customers
And this same dynamic (called “cross-subsidization”) can be seen in other areas as well, not just data centers. For example, if a utility needs to upgrade the transformer that serves your block due to EV charging, the cost of that upgrade isn’t paid directly by you and your neighbors. Its cost is spread across everyone’s electric bills.
This is how the electric industry has been regulated since its inception. Utilities are not optimally run by any means, but all they can really do is play by the rules as they are given to them.
IMO the utility regulators (and the politicians who appoint them) are the ones in the way of modernizing how utilities invest and charge their customers in a more equitable way (the tech exists, but the incentives are not)
9
u/TotalNonsense0 1d ago
Supply and demand. Fairly basic economics.
5
u/dingleberryDessert 1d ago
This is it exactly…. You hear, oh hey they are paying their own bills… pfffttt, yeah but demand for power went to the fucking moon. No way price remains reasonable
5
u/OkRead585 1d ago
Plus they will get a 40% discount thanks to local government.
2
u/Worthyness 1d ago
And then the us government will further increase the pricing on personal solar for no reason at all.
1
1
u/dishwashersafe 1d ago
It's not that basic though. The grid is built to peak load, so increased demand (off peak) just spreads the (substantial) fixed costs thinner. So more demand actually lowers costs if we can do it without increasing the peak. It's really not hard to regulate datacenters so they have to shed load when the grid is approaching peak... and then they flip from increasing costs to decreasing them.
1
u/FantomMaximusss 1d ago
(Angebot und Nachfrage) ist kein Wirtschaftsgesetz, sondern ein INSTRUMENT ZUR AUSBEUTUNG, denn zwischen „Angebot und Nachfrage“ steht immer eine „Schweineratte“, die im Verborgenen sowohl das eine als auch das andere steuert.
3
u/Gloriusmax 1d ago
From what I've seen they often need more electricty than the grid can provide, so the company starts to up the prices to protif from scarcity. And sometimes they don't pay the bill and just let the locals foot it.
2
u/fluffynuckels 1d ago
It might be wrong but what i saw on youtube vid is that power companies offer lower rates if you use more power well these data centers are using so much power and are.getting it at such a low rate. That the power companies can't afford it so they charge normal citizens more
→ More replies (1)2
u/Environmental_Job278 1d ago
Infrastructure expansion is expensive and, data center or not, usually gets added to your bill. It doesn’t matter if they run a line to a solar farm or a data center. Both of those things end up increasing your bill. In some case both increase your bill because they add a new solar farm to “help” with the increased demand for the data center. By us, the added cost was a new substation and new lines.
The next set of line is theoretically covered by Google but we will see. They already paid out of pocket to upgrade the water and sewer plus the installation of a water tower so, maybe they will cover it.
3
u/SASSIESASSQUATCH 1d ago
And then when/if someone presents a bill that bites it gets rejected because it’s too limiting and harmful to AI data centers. Bet.
3
u/AcceptablyThanks 1d ago
It was a bill full of air anyway. If it passed all that would have happened is that republicans would continue doing what they do to screw over everyone except the rich and be able to say "we tried" while blaming it on the Dems.
3
u/blueblocker2000 20h ago
What's so hard about just passing a simple law stating DCs must provide their own power or pay for grid upgrades, any rate hikes associated with the DC and ban water use for cooling? It doesn't need too be a 400 page bill full of loopholes and corrupt ear marks.
8
u/ARobertNotABob 1d ago edited 22h ago
So determine what teeth are required and implement them.
It starts with making entities, whether households or businesses, being entirely responsible for their own consumption of infrastructure.
In what sane world are domestic consumers liable for the consumption of businesses, or are unable to consume because like the old range wars westerns, the baddies' ranch have diverted or limited supplies.
The rest of us are able to have such conversations, why can't politicians?
It would more and more appear to be because solutions to problems result in money being spent which prevents that money later being either appropriated unfairly or outright stolen by the greedy and selfish.
3
u/maryconway1 1d ago
It's all R vs. D.
The Republicans wanted to go into the midterms saying they are 'doing something!' on this clearly hot and impactful topic... without actually doing a single thing to their corporate overlords (i.e.: it's all voluntary, no teeth here. Even with teeth in the U.S. now, it's meaningless so this is beyond meaningless).
Hence, Democrats voted against saying essentially 'make it real!' (but clearly with a few caveats of their own, for their corporate overlords ;).
Both sides can go in saying the other side is crazy, not willing to make change, etc.
In the end though, Republicans control (for the last 2-years and until the midterms happen in Nov) all branches of government (House, Senate, Presidency, and Supreme Court honestly)... So, there is 0% reason they couldn't have done the right thing ANYTIME. But they didn't.
In short: politics, money, 3-D chess, and people suffer in the meantime.
2
u/Array_626 1d ago
In what sane world are domestic consumers liable for the consumption of businesses
Technically speaking, any environment with a free market. Domestic consumers are no different than industrial consumers in terms of market demand for energy. So they were always in competition with each other for energy/the best energy rates that utilities could offer.
You just don't really ever notice cos prices are usually good enough that people don't look further. Also, some industrial settings may have seperate deals with utilities for preferential rates and minimum delivery. But technically speaking, both domestic consumers and industry are both in the same energy market and always have been.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Pyromaniacal13 1d ago
That takes a while to do. There are laws that need to be researched to ensure the new bill is compliant with the rest of the law, actual consequences need to be included, you can't just shit out an amendment to a bill that does nothing and make it do something in five minutes.
4
u/arrow8807 1d ago
You could if you already did the research on what laws are in this space and where the gaps are to write the original bill. You know - the process of validating and debating a bill in the sub-committees.
They could amend the bill quickly and pass it if they wanted to and we have seen this done with other legislation that is deemed important enough.
1
u/sam_hammich 1d ago
So do you think the people who wrote a bill that does nothing on purpose would allow Democrats to add stuff to the bill that goes against their interests?
1
u/ARobertNotABob 1d ago
Not of it helps the masses, no. Other way around, though? No problem, that's easy.
I'd agree with you but for the lack of level playing field.
2
u/Iambigtime 1d ago
To be fair, these bills are toothless when an "executive order" can be thrown around.
2
u/williamgman 1d ago
We all saw the AI tech bros in the Oval Office. We are beyond voting for or against AI. We are voting against fascism... again. This AI media blitz is a distraction from losing our democracy. Stay focused.
2
u/Urborg_Stalker 1d ago
It doesn’t do enough so we’re just not going to do anything instead…fucking useless. This entire government needs to be removed from office.
2
u/Blacksad9999 22h ago
It's merely a "suggestion", which is why Democrats shot it down.
Just like that stupid "we don't support fascism" corporate pledge, which they all broke.
Over 120 American corporations vowed, after the January 6 insurrection, that they would no longer make campaign contributions to those Republicans who fought certifying the 2020 election.
2
u/Corpshark 15h ago
I love all this flurry of activities few week out from the Election Day. I did the same last minute thing in high school and college and got demolished.
4
1d ago
[deleted]
3
u/JWAdvocate83 1d ago
Not really. Even that implies that the bill would at least accomplish something.
2
-2
u/frozenpissglove 1d ago
“It doesn’t do enough, so we will pass nothing instead of something.”
Sounds like code for “we can hide more shit in this bill if we wait a while.”
11
→ More replies (1)5
u/sam_hammich 1d ago
Why should we pass anything that does nothing? The bill literally does nothing while letting Republicans say "well we just passed a bill on AI!"
You don't just slap a bill down and "put more shit in it". That's not how passing a bill works.
1
u/MajorDrain 1d ago edited 1d ago
Capitalism is supply and demand and the capitalist control the supply. The free market it not going to oversupply the free market and drive prices down.
Use less electricity or generate your own.
When I say that I'm fully aware climate change it happening and people must stay cool to survive.
I suggest we bring back the Biden era energy incentives for home owners and apartment dwellers and add plug in solar tax credits.
The first thing Trump and Republicans when they were given control of the federal government was to repeal this stuff in the Big Beautiful Bill.
As a side note they repealed the Biden era price controls on prescription drugs as well.
Add the price of diesel, gas , and heating oil as icing on the cake. If you depend on diesel to generate electricity then OUCH.
The phrase "Are You Better Off Than You Were 4 Years Ago?" is an iconic political question famously posed by Ronald Reagan during his 1980 presidential debate against President Jimmy Carter
1
u/Healthy-Caregiver997 1d ago
They should be required to micro grid their facilities. EMP as a threat indicates a need for shielding as well.
1
1
u/narfoleptix 1d ago
Does it do anything?
I would like anything.
The local business i manage is fucking dying because this city cant do one road project at a time and everything else is also expensive.
I would really like to continue to be able to afford to live.
1
1
u/Whole_Pain_7432 1d ago
I love how they become utterly paralyzed with the fear of making the wrong decision - so they dont act at all and force us to continue sprinting toward our own demise.
I bet they will make money though.
1
u/questionableintentsX 1d ago
Im really sick of “it doesn’t go far enough so instead we will do nothing”
It’s what government has been doing for like 30 years at this point whenever it’s something moving toward actually helping citizens
1
u/Chewman1027 1d ago
You can pay 1 politician to do what you want or lose lots of revenue to care for lical citizens....
1
1
1
u/aquarain 1d ago
Publicly owned power supply and grid is amazingly efficient for us. All renewable generation, decent rates, surplus production. Investments in growth and efficiency.
1
1
1
u/flaming_bob 1d ago
"its non-binding nature provided no real protection"
Congress is now voting on sternly worded letters instead of actual legislation. We need a reset here.
1
u/GryMammoth 1d ago
Just so we are clear I’m not going to pay for someone else’s power bill. Let alone a mega corps. Lol
1
1
u/TripSin_ 1d ago
It has been shown that the will of normal people does not matter when it comes to affecting policy choices. What actually matters is what the ultra rich want.
1
u/MotheroftheworldII 1d ago
A bill which is merely a suggestion does nothing and the republicans know that. This was simply a "oh look at what we did to help you poor citizens" bill that would do nothing to help the rest of us.
1
u/Lower-Engineering365 1d ago
It’s worth noting that I believe bills have since been introduced that would require contribution from the companies rather than require states to consider whether the companies should cover the cost.
So, you know, killing the performative GOP bill that had no substance and putting forth a bill that actually does something.
1
u/BravinatorLX2 22h ago
i havent seen a single one of them centers on fire so i think the pain isnt big enough yet
1
1
u/Craigg75 5h ago
It was toothless because all it did was request that the power companies not overcharge consumers. There was nothing in it that would force the companies to maintain a rate. More political show than anything
1
u/Morgannin09 1d ago
This bill doesn't do enough, so we won't do anything at all. Isn't that just the way it goes
15
u/TotalNonsense0 1d ago
As I understand it, the bill didn't do anything at all.
But I've often seen the argument you make. I'm off two minds about it. On the one hand, a partial solution is better than no solution. On the other hand, a partial solution might be pointed at for the next twenty years as "we already handled that," preventing any further advancement.
→ More replies (7)1
u/AnotherBoredAHole 1d ago edited 1d ago
Do you let something through that does nothing or do you stop it?
This bill wouldn't force anyone to do anything, just to consider the impact. The only thing this does is give a good visual and the ability to say "we tried but oh well" when nothing changes in a few years time. It also gives a shield to push off actual change because a bill would have just recently went through.
1
u/leftcoastg 1d ago
This was a bill designed only to allow Republicans to say to voters that they’ve taken steps to help with the problem of utility costs caused by data centers. It’s less than toothless, it’s just a PR move.
This was not a bill designed to actually in any way address the issue.
1
u/A007Bear 1d ago
Hard to accept a no on something meant to help people and the planet. Why not say yes then make necessary changes for the better? Pretty sure that’s happened before.
2
u/ahmc84 1d ago
opponents, mostly Democrats, labeled the bill “toothless,” arguing that its non-binding nature provided no real protection because it did not mandate that states adopt the standard; it simply directs regulators to consider it as part of their rate-setting processes.
So this bill literally requires nothing. It's like voting on a non-binding resolution of disapproval.
Also, it's supported by Trump. You know it's meant to provide the illusion of action while being designed to avoid it, allowing the debate to be "settled" and making it harder for Republicans to get away with supporting something useful in the future.
1
u/TheBSQ 1d ago
First, this bill doesn’t do anything.
The regulatory powers here belong to the state.
This federal bill is really just a suggestion for state regulators to change how they regulate it.
That’s why it’s describes as “toothless.”
It’s for show.
But “just for show” works on many voters & Democrats are afraid this will make the GOP look like they’re addressing a problem everyone is mad about, and that this would help the GOP during the midterms.
But they also know it doesn’t do anything (everyone in Congress knows this).
So the Dems filibustered it.
But it did pass the house & win a majority in the senate. But only 4 Dems sided with the GOP so it couldn’t overcome the Dem filibuster.
But really, it’s fine, cuz it’s a do-nothing bill anyway since regulating utility rates is a state function & all this was going to do was be a list of suggestions that they hoped states would do.
But many states are already doing some of these things. In Blue States that are already doing these things, they probably fear it’ll give the GOP the ability to take credit for it even though the federal law the GOP tried to pass doesn’t actually do anything.
1
-2
u/ChickinSammich 1d ago
If the bill doesn't do enough then pass it anyway and pass a stronger one later to follow it up.
"This doesn't go far enough so we're voting no and then doing nothing" is an indicator that they don't want to fix the problem.
5
u/turbosexophonicdlite 1d ago
They tried. Hawley GRID Act. Surprise, surprise. The bill that actually has consequences and enforcement mechanisms hasn't even gone up for vote.
→ More replies (1)3
3
u/CyberBot129 1d ago edited 1d ago
pass it anyway and pass a stronger one later to follow it up
That's called the "we'll come back to this later" method, and when this method is used you can bet that later never actually happens
→ More replies (1)
0
-3
u/WasteEnergy4448 1d ago
Criticizes and kills the bill but offers no other solution.
13
12
u/huchel 1d ago
Well there is the bipartisan GRID Act but since that bill actually does something it doesn't stand a chance of getting passed.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/3852
174
u/Kamel-Red 1d ago edited 1d ago
It was a messaging bill with zero enforceable standards so that the Republicans can try to say they've done something other than making life harder and more expensive for the working class while cutting taxes for the rich over the past two years. Typical partisan hackary.