Looking for a quick fix for their fast-growing electricity diets, tech giants are increasingly looking to strike deals that would let them plug directly into power plants.

It’s raising questions over whether diverting power to higher-paying customers will leave enough for others and whether it’s fair to excuse big power users from paying for the grid. Federal regulators are trying to figure out what to do about it, and quickly.

Front and center is the data center that Amazon’s cloud computing subsidiary, Amazon Web Services, is building next to the Susquehanna nuclear plant in eastern Pennsylvania.

The arrangement between the plant’s owners and AWS — called a “behind the meter” connection — is the first such to come before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. For now, FERC has rejected a deal that could eventually send 960 megawatts — about 40% of the plant’s capacity — to the data center. That’s enough to power more than a half-million homes.

  • Shacktastic@lemy.lolEnglish
    115·
    23 hours ago

    So utilities (presumably transmission providers who have a government-granted territorial monopoly, mind you) are complaining about not getting tariff on those behind the meter megawatts?

    It seems like an alternate way to spin this story is that Big Tech is making agreements that avoid putting load on the nation’s aging and overloaded transmission infrastructure, which would be a good thing.

    Not that I’m endorsing them per se. Electricity pricing and policy is complicated, and increased demand will directly or indirectly increase consumer prices (though long term it could lower them or even help fund nuclear renaissance). But it just seems like another case of big companies being crybabies when they think it might help them get their way.

    • WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world
      18·
      22 hours ago

      The problem is this allows big companies to skirt the power grid and therefore not have to invest money in it to make sure it’s good and can instead continue to let the grid fall apart even more as they have their own private connections. This is the same reason why government run healthcare and forced public school would be good as it would force rich people to invest in these public goods rather then use their own private better versions.

      • Shacktastic@lemy.lolEnglish
        53·
        21 hours ago

        Transmission providers don’t build much new line for other reasons… It’s hard, for example, to get utilities, environmental groups, landowners, and regulators from multiple jurisdictions to agree on things. This idea that providers would build more if there was just a bit more demand on the system (instead of simply pocketing the tariff increase) is fanciful. Moreover, that demand would simply generate more headwinds for renewables, who actually need transmission.

        • WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world
          5·
          20 hours ago

          I’m not saying the increased demand would make them build more. I’m saying if companies are forced to rely on the grid they will help pressure/fund new expansions or maintenance on the power grid as if it fails they’re gonna lose money. If they’re not reliant on the grid anymore through things like this they would have no interest in making it better and they would stop applying pressure to make things better. And also atleast in my area increased demand from data center has caused attempts to build more transmission lines. Without these data centers having to use the public grid those investments wouldn’t be happening. Now there’s arguments to be had there about whether we should be encouraging data centers like this at all with the environmental cost of them using this much energy but if managed correctly it could lead to more investment in the power grid to make it better. Whereas if we allow companies to make their own power grid essentially then our current grid will be allowed to continue to fail.