jain.com — data centers, connectivity and security, analyzed daily

Tag: AI Power Demand

  • AI’s Nuclear Restarts Also Need Rivers: Three Mile Island’s 73M-Gallon-a-Day Permit

    AI’s Nuclear Restarts Also Need Rivers: Three Mile Island’s 73M-Gallon-a-Day Permit

    TL;DR · 30-second read

    The Short Version

    Pennsylvania’s environmental regulator has approved how the Three Mile Island nuclear plant may use river water if it restarts. The plant’s power has been promised to Microsoft to help run its computer centers.

    On its busiest days the plant could draw up to 73 million gallons from the Susquehanna River, enough to fill more than 100 Olympic swimming pools. About 21 million gallons a day would turn to steam and not return.

    The takeaway: reviving old nuclear plants for artificial intelligence depends on rivers and fish, not just reactor safety.

    The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has issued a Section 401 Water Quality Certification for restarting Constellation Energy’s Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Londonderry Township, Dauphin County, PA Environment Digest reported on September 18, 2026. Notice of the decision appears in the September 19 edition of the Pennsylvania Bulletin, the state’s official register.

    The certification covers water withdrawals from the Susquehanna River of up to 73.2 million gallons per day on a peak day, consumptive use of up to 21 million gallons per day, and heated-water discharges back to the river at a maximum of 110°F. Anyone aggrieved by the decision has 30 days from the notice to appeal to Pennsylvania’s Environmental Hearing Board.

    Executive Summary

    A Section 401 certification is the state’s formal finding that a federally licensed project will meet state water quality standards. For a nuclear plant, the federal license comes from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and under the federal Clean Water Act that license cannot take effect for an activity discharging into U.S. waters unless the state certifies it or waives its right to do so. DEP’s action therefore removes a state-level condition on the path to restarting Unit 1, the reactor Constellation has agreed to run for Microsoft under a 20-year power purchase agreement announced in 2024.

    The certification also puts hard numbers on the restart’s physical footprint. The plant expects to withdraw up to 73.2 million gallons a day at peak and consume up to 21 million gallons, water lost to evaporation in cooling towers rather than returned to the river. DEP concluded that closed-cycle cooling will minimize harm to fish drawn into or trapped against the intake.

    The decision is not yet final in a practical sense: the 30-day appeal window is open, and the certification is one of several approvals a restart needs. But it shows that the fastest route to firm, carbon-free power for AI, reviving a plant that already exists, still runs through water regulators.

    Why a Water Permit Gates a Reactor Restart

    Most coverage of nuclear power for AI focuses on the NRC, which judges whether a reactor is safe to operate. The Three Mile Island certification highlights a second, parallel track. A steam-cycle power plant is, in large part, a machine for moving heat into water: it pulls water from a river, uses it to condense steam, and either evaporates it through cooling towers or sends it back warmer. Every one of those steps touches state water quality law.

    DEP’s notice identifies three impacts it had to weigh: withdrawal from the Susquehanna, consumptive use, and thermal discharge into a river designated for warm water fishes and migratory fishes. The figures are specific. Peak withdrawal of up to 73.2 million gallons a day, consumptive use of up to 21 million gallons a day, and a discharge temperature ceiling of 110°F. Those numbers define what the restarted plant is permitted to do, and they are set by the state, not by the NRC or the power buyer.

    This is the mechanism behind the headline. A restart deal with a technology customer creates the demand; a reactor license makes operation legally possible; but without the water certification, the federal license cannot rest on a finding that state water standards will be met. For the developers, utilities and hyperscalers (the largest cloud operators) counting on restarts to bridge the AI power gap, water approvals belong on the critical path alongside nuclear safety reviews.

    The Consumptive-Use Number Is the One to Watch

    The 73.2-million-gallon withdrawal figure is the larger number, but the 21-million-gallon consumptive-use figure is arguably the more consequential. Consumptive use is water that does not return to the river, mostly because it evaporates from cooling towers. In a closed-cycle system, the plant recirculates water through towers instead of passing river water through once and discharging it, which sharply cuts withdrawals and the number of fish pulled into the intake (entrainment) or pinned against screens (impingement). The trade-off is that evaporation is built into the design.

    That matters most in dry, hot periods, when river flows drop and every user of the basin competes for the same water. The release does not describe any low-flow conditions attached to the certification, which is why the full certification document, available from DEP’s Southcentral Regional Office, will be of interest to other water users downstream and to anyone modeling the plant’s summer availability.

    Pennsylvania’s Grid Stress Raises the Stakes

    The certification arrives in a week that illustrates why firm generation is valuable in Pennsylvania. PJM Interconnection, the grid operator for Pennsylvania and 12 other states plus Washington, D.C., issued maximum generation and load management alerts for September 17 amid hot weather and 35,000 megawatts of maintenance outages, and a Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission study warned that rapid data center growth could cause PJM to fail a reliability standard in 2027 absent further action. The same week, DEP opened comment on a water quality permit for an Amazon Data Services campus in Luzerne County and on stormwater permits for PPL Electric transmission projects intended to serve large loads.

    Against that backdrop, a restart that returns an existing nuclear unit to service is one of the few supply additions that can arrive on a data-center timeline. But the pattern across these permits is consistent: whether the project is a reactor, a data center or a transmission line, state environmental permits for water and land disturbance are a gating step. Buyers of AI capacity who treat power as purely a contracting or interconnection question are likely to underestimate schedule risk.

    Background

    Three Mile Island, on the Susquehanna River south of Harrisburg, is best known for the 1979 partial meltdown at Unit 2, the most serious accident in U.S. commercial nuclear history. Unit 2 never reopened, but Unit 1 continued operating until 2019, when it closed for economic reasons. In 2024 Constellation Energy, the largest U.S. operator of nuclear plants, announced a 20-year power purchase agreement with Microsoft tied to restarting Unit 1, renamed the Crane Clean Energy Center.

    The deal became a reference point for a broader trend: technology companies seeking around-the-clock, carbon-free electricity for AI data centers are turning to existing nuclear assets because new reactors take many years to build. Pennsylvania sits inside PJM, the largest U.S. grid region, where data center demand growth has become a central reliability and cost concern for regulators.

    Sources

    Source: DEP Issues Section 401 Water Quality Certification For Restart Of Constellation Energy Three Mile Island Data Center Nuclear Power Plant In Dauphin County (PA Environment Digest), summarizing DEP’s notice in the September 19, 2026 Pennsylvania Bulletin.

  • Shanghai Electric Lands First Overseas Gas Turbine Order in Malaysia

    Shanghai Electric Lands First Overseas Gas Turbine Order in Malaysia

    TL;DR · 30-second read

    The Short Version

    Shanghai Electric, a large Chinese engineering company, has won its first order outside China for the giant gas-burning engines that drive power station generators. They will go into a new power plant in Malaysia.

    Why it matters: the few American, European and Japanese firms that dominate this business have waiting lists stretching years, partly because artificial intelligence needs so much electricity. A new supplier promising machines from 2028 could give power-hungry countries another option, if its equipment proves itself abroad.

    Shanghai Electric (SEHK: 02727, SSE: 601727) announced in a press release on September 14, 2026 that it has won the contract for Unit 3 of the Sarawak Samalaju Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) Project in Malaysia, which the company describes as a 500 MW project. It is the Chinese manufacturer’s first overseas order for heavy-duty gas turbines, the large industrial machines used in utility-scale power plants.

    The company will deliver the plant on an EPC (engineering, procurement and construction) turnkey basis and provide a 25-year long-term service agreement covering all major equipment. The customer is identified only as a Malaysian energy developer, and no contract value was given.

    Executive Summary

    The deal is broader than a turbine sale. Shanghai Electric says it will build the whole gas-fired plant and manufacture every core component itself: the gas turbines, the steam turbines, the generators, the heat recovery steam generators (boilers that capture hot turbine exhaust to make steam) and the air-cooled systems. It will also be the sole maintenance and service provider for 25 years, a bundle the company says puts it on par with the established leaders in heavy-duty gas turbines.

    The timing matters. Demand for gas-fired generation has surged, driven in part by electricity-hungry AI data centers, and the dominant turbine makers, GE Vernova, Siemens Energy and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, are working through backlogs that push new deliveries years out. Shanghai Electric says it can deliver new units as early as 2028 and that developers in Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines and Vietnam have expressed strong interest. If that interest turns into orders, Chinese manufacturers could become a real alternative in a market with few suppliers.

    For now this is one contract with an unnamed customer and undisclosed terms. It is a meaningful first step abroad, not yet proof of international competitiveness at scale.

    A Seller’s Market Opens a Door

    Heavy-duty gas turbines are among the hardest machines in the energy industry to make. They run at extreme temperatures, need advanced materials and cooling designs, and have to operate reliably for decades. Only a handful of companies build them at utility scale, which gives buyers little leverage when demand rises. Demand has risen sharply: utilities are replacing coal, balancing intermittent renewables and, increasingly, supplying power to large data center campuses. The incumbents have responded with fuller order books and longer waits for new units.

    That is the opening Shanghai Electric is aiming at. Its claim that new units could ship as early as 2028 is its most commercially pointed statement, because developers who cannot secure turbines cannot build plants. For a buyer facing a multi-year wait, an earlier delivery slot can outweigh a supplier’s shorter international track record. The release does not say, however, how many 2028 slots exist or whether the Malaysian project will use one of them.

    The likely early winners are developers in markets where cost and schedule matter most and where Chinese engineering and financing are already familiar. The established manufacturers are unlikely to feel much effect in the near term; one contract does not change a global order book. The bigger question is whether a credible alternative supplier eventually eases pricing power in a market that has run tight.

    The Turnkey Bet: Building It and Keeping It Running

    A combined cycle plant burns natural gas in a gas turbine, then uses the turbine’s hot exhaust to raise steam for a second turbine, getting more electricity from the same fuel. Shanghai Electric’s decision to make all the core parts in-house and wrap them in an EPC contract means the customer deals with a single counterparty for design, equipment, construction and integration. That simplifies coordination and puts responsibility for performance in one place.

    The 25-year service agreement may be the most important piece economically. Across the industry, long-term service contracts covering inspections, replacement parts and overhauls are a large and steady source of revenue for turbine makers over a plant’s life, often more durable than the original equipment sale. Securing one on its first overseas heavy-duty project gives Shanghai Electric a recurring revenue stream and, just as valuable, a site outside China where its equipment will build an operating record.

    For the customer, the trade-off cuts both ways. Single-source responsibility is simpler, but it concentrates risk: if the equipment underperforms or parts supply is disrupted, there is no second vendor to turn to for major components during the service term. The strength of that arrangement will depend on performance guarantees and penalty clauses, which have not been disclosed.

    What the Track Record Does and Does Not Show

    Shanghai Electric cites 103 heavy-duty units delivered, more than 21,000 MW of installed capacity from commissioned projects, and more than 1.3 million operating hours on units under its long-term service programs. For scale, a single turbine running around the clock accumulates about 8,760 hours a year, so 1.3 million hours is a substantial fleet history. Its current lineup has two principal models, rated at 300 MW and 78 MW.

    Because this is the company’s first overseas heavy-duty order, that record appears to have been built mainly in its home market. Domestic experience is real engineering evidence, but international buyers and lenders typically also look at availability rates, efficiency, emissions performance and how well a supplier supports equipment far from its home base. The release gives no figures on any of those, so the claim of parity with global leaders is the company’s own assessment for now.

    Southeast Asia as the Proving Ground

    Southeast Asia is a logical first market. Economies across the region are growing, electricity demand is rising, and several countries are adding gas-fired capacity as they move away from coal. Malaysia has also become a major destination for data center investment, adding to pressure on its power system, although nothing in the announcement ties the Samalaju plant to data center load.

    Shanghai Electric’s statement that developers in Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines and Vietnam have shown strong interest should be read carefully: expressions of interest are not orders. Still, it points to a sales strategy of winning a reference project nearby and using it to win the next one. How smoothly Samalaju Unit 3 is built and runs will likely do more for that pipeline than any announcement.

    Background

    Shanghai Electric is a Chinese industrial group listed in Hong Kong (02727) and Shanghai (601727) that makes power generation equipment, including steam turbines, generators and gas turbines. Its heavy-duty gas turbine business has built a fleet of more than 100 units, mainly in its home market, and the Samalaju contract is its first heavy-duty gas turbine order outside China.

    The heavy-duty gas turbine market has long been dominated by GE Vernova, Siemens Energy and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, whose order books have lengthened as demand for gas-fired generation has grown. Samalaju is an industrial area in the Malaysian state of Sarawak on the island of Borneo, where electricity demand from industry has driven power development.

    Sources

    Source: Shanghai Electric Secures First Overseas Heavy-Duty Gas Turbine Order for 500 MW Malaysian Project, Shanghai Electric’s announcement of its contract for Unit 3 of the Sarawak Samalaju combined cycle gas turbine project in Malaysia.

  • IsoEnergy’s Métis Exploration Agreement and the Uranium Chain Behind AI Power

    IsoEnergy’s Métis Exploration Agreement and the Uranium Chain Behind AI Power

    IsoEnergy Ltd. (NYSE American: ISOU; TSX: ISO) announced on August 24, 2026 that it has signed an Exploration Agreement with Kineepik Métis Local Inc., which represents Métis rights holders in the Kineepik Use and Occupancy Area, including members and residents of Pinehouse, Saskatchewan.

    The agreement establishes a framework for engagement, information sharing and collaboration as IsoEnergy advances uranium exploration in the area, and provides for Kineepik community members and businesses to participate through business, employment and training opportunities. No financial terms, timelines or project-specific commitments were disclosed.

    Executive Summary

    The announcement is, on its face, a routine milestone in mineral exploration: a formal engagement framework between a uranium explorer and an Indigenous community whose territory overlaps its ground. IsoEnergy CEO Philip Williams described it as formalizing a long-standing relationship, while Kineepik President Mike Natomagan called it a milestone that ensures the community stays informed, has a voice in exploration, and sees exploration in its territory done responsibly.

    It matters to infrastructure readers for a less obvious reason. The conversation about powering AI data centers increasingly runs through nuclear energy — and nuclear energy runs on uranium. Every reactor that utilities and hyperscalers hope will carry future compute load depends on a fuel supply chain that begins with exploration drills in places like Saskatchewan’s Athabasca Basin, the district IsoEnergy is exploring. Agreements like this one are how that upstream work earns the social license — the community acceptance a project needs beyond its legal permits — to proceed at all.

    The release is thin on specifics: it describes a framework, not quantified commitments. But frameworks of this kind are increasingly standard practice in Canadian uranium country, and they shape whether deposits discovered today can become mines on the timelines the demand side is counting on.

    Why a Drill Program in Saskatchewan Touches the Data Center Industry

    Nuclear power has moved to the center of the debate about meeting AI-era electricity demand because it offers what data centers prize: large blocks of carbon-free, around-the-clock generation. But reactors are only the visible end of a long chain. Before fuel reaches a plant, uranium must be found, permitted, mined, milled, converted and enriched — a sequence that takes years at each stage. Exploration is the very front of that chain, and Canada’s Athabasca Basin, where IsoEnergy is advancing its Larocque East project, is one of the world’s premier uranium districts. The company says Larocque East hosts the Hurricane deposit, which it describes as the world’s highest-grade indicated uranium mineral resource — a company characterization, but one that signals why this ground attracts attention.

    For readers who follow power procurement rather than mining, the takeaway is structural: any long-term bet on nuclear-powered compute is implicitly a bet that the upstream fuel chain scales alongside it. That chain’s pace is governed as much by community agreements, consultation processes and permitting as by geology. This release is a small data point in that larger question.

    The Economics of Social License

    In Canadian resource development, the duty to consult Indigenous rights holders is a constitutional and practical reality, and companies that treat engagement as a late-stage checkbox routinely face delays, disputes and stalled projects. Exploration agreements like this one are the industry’s answer: negotiated frameworks that define how information flows, how concerns are raised, and how economic benefits — jobs, training, contracts for community-owned businesses — are shared during the exploration phase, before anyone knows whether a mine will ever exist.

    The release offers a glimpse of why this model has traction on the community side. Kineepik and the Northern Village of Pinehouse describe reinvesting profits from community-owned businesses into energy-efficient housing, youth infrastructure including a hockey arena, and a 12-unit Elders’ housing facility. That is the partnership thesis in miniature: resource activity as a revenue stream the community directs toward its own priorities. For the company, the value is risk reduction — a documented, mutually agreed process is far cheaper than conflict. Both interests are real, and neither is charity.

    What the Agreement Does — and What It Doesn’t Claim

    It is worth being precise about the scope here. This is an exploration agreement, not an impact benefit agreement of the kind typically negotiated when a project advances toward construction and mining. The release describes engagement, information sharing, and participation opportunities; it discloses no payments, equity, revenue sharing, employment targets or consent provisions, and it does not say which specific properties in IsoEnergy’s Saskatchewan portfolio it covers. Both parties’ statements are positive but general.

    That does not make the announcement empty — formalizing a relationship in writing is a genuine step beyond ad hoc goodwill, and Natomagan’s framing that such agreements ‘give us a voice in exploration’ suggests the community sees substance in it. But investors and observers should read it as the establishment of a process, not the settlement of terms. The harder negotiations, if Hurricane or other targets advance toward development, lie ahead. The company’s own cautionary language acknowledges this, listing ‘aboriginal title and consultation issues’ among its ongoing risk factors.

    Background

    IsoEnergy is a uranium exploration and development company listed on the NYSE American and TSX, with assets across Canada, the United States and Australia positioned, in its words, to provide leverage to rising uranium prices. Its most advanced Canadian asset is Larocque East in Saskatchewan’s Athabasca Basin, containing the high-grade Hurricane deposit. The company has also been broadening beyond exploration: recent releases on the same wire announce the completed formation of DISA Uranium Corporation with DISA Technologies, described as a technology-enabled U.S. uranium platform for production, processing and remediation.

    In Saskatchewan — home to some of the world’s richest uranium deposits — agreements between explorers and Indigenous communities have become an established feature of how projects advance. They reflect both Canada’s legal duty to consult rights holders and a practical recognition that projects proceed faster and more durably with community partnership than without it, a dynamic that grows in importance as renewed interest in nuclear power, including for data center demand, puts a spotlight on future uranium supply.

    Source: IsoEnergy Signs Exploration Agreement with Kineepik Métis Local to Support Responsible Uranium Exploration in Saskatchewan — IsoEnergy Ltd. press release via PR Newswire, August 24, 2026.

  • Georgia’s 1,000-Mile AI Grid Build Shows the Cost the Rate Math Misses: Easements

    Georgia’s 1,000-Mile AI Grid Build Shows the Cost the Rate Math Misses: Easements

    TL;DR · 30-second read

    The Short Version

    Georgia’s biggest power company is building more than 1,000 miles of new power lines, longer than the drive from Atlanta to New York City. About 80 percent of the new electricity it plans to add is expected to go to data centers, the giant warehouses of computers that run artificial intelligence.

    The lines must cross private land: more than 330 properties, including nearly 30 homes that will be torn down. The company starts its offers a quarter above a property’s appraised value and says it rarely forces a sale. But the right to run lines across land usually lasts forever, even after the owner sells.

    Fortune reported on July 26, 2026 that Georgia Power is contacting property owners along a 35-mile route through Fayette, Heard, Fulton and Coweta counties for the Ashley Park-Wansley Transmission Project, a new line between its Ashley Park Substation and its plant at Wansley. It is one of five projects that together make up more than 1,000 miles of new transmission in the utility’s plan. That plan spans more than 330 parcels of land and requires nearly 30 residential properties to be leveled.

    Georgia Power says land acquisition and easement negotiations are close to complete, with construction as early as 2027. It opens offers at 125% of appraised value and says eminent domain is used in fewer than 1% of its land transactions: five times in the past year, none on homes. The utility disputes describing the line as a data center project. The generation plan it agreed with the Georgia Public Service Commission in December 2025 says about 80% of nearly 10,000 new megawatts is expected to power data centers.

    Executive Summary

    Georgia Power is acquiring land and easements for one of five transmission projects that together add more than 1,000 miles of high-voltage lines to Georgia’s grid. Transmission lines are the long-distance wires that move bulk electricity from power plants to local substations. The buildout accompanies roughly 10 gigawatts of new generation that state regulators certified in December 2025, and about 80% of that generation is expected to power data centers.

    The story matters because it moves the cost of AI-era grid expansion out of abstract rate cases and onto specific parcels of land. Georgia Power argues that large data center customers will pay more, which it projects will cut residential bills by about $102 a year from 2029. That argument does not address the right-of-way. Nearly 30 homes are to be leveled, and permanent easements will cover hundreds of parcels.

    How utilities conduct those negotiations shapes how fast AI infrastructure can be powered and on what terms. So does how often they fall back on eminent domain, and how publicly they justify it.

    The Rate Math Counts Bills, Not Easements

    Georgia Power frames its public case for the buildout around electricity bills. The utility projects that the five transmission projects will save residential customers about $102 a year each starting in 2029. The mechanism is that large-load customers, meaning very big single users such as data centers, are required to pay more. Media Relations Manager Meredith Stone said those funds put “downward pressure on the rates for our residential customers.” That is a claim about tariffs, the prices customers pay, and it is the number the utility leads with.

    The land side of the same projects works differently. Delivering power over more than 1,000 miles of new line means securing rights across more than 330 parcels and leveling nearly 30 homes. Georgia Power says it opens negotiations at 125% of appraised value. Where owners grant an easement rather than sell outright, the utility gains a permanent right to use a strip of their land. David Needham, a Georgia attorney who has represented landowners in eminent domain cases for more than a decade, said those rights stay attached to the property after it is sold. They can prohibit permanent structures beneath the lines and can reserve broad rights for the utility to install additional infrastructure.

    The per-customer savings figure does not capture that cost. A bill saving is spread across the whole residential customer base and recurs every year. An easement is priced once, at the negotiating table, and its restrictions are carried indefinitely by whoever owns that particular piece of ground. For utilities and data center developers, the consequence is that AI-driven grid expansion depends on hundreds of individual land deals, not only on the generation plan regulators certified. Those deals determine how fast the expansion proceeds and how much public acceptance it wins.

    Condemnation Is Rare; the Room to Say No Is Narrow

    On the record, condemnation is uncommon. Georgia Power says eminent domain is a last resort that occurs in fewer than 1% of its land transactions. It says the power was used five times in the past year, none involving residential homes. Nothing disclosed contradicts those figures. The case that drew the most public attention also ended in a deal. It became widely known through social media posts by Ansley Brown and involved the office of U.S. Rep. Brian Jack, and Georgia Power said it reached an agreement with the family, without disclosing the terms.

    Residents’ description of the process is also consistent with how it works. “We don’t have a choice in this,” Brown said in one video. Once a route is chosen, a landowner’s options are a full sale or an easement, and keeping the line off the property is not one of them. Condemnation stands behind the negotiation as the alternative if talks fail. Needham called the resulting easement agreements “very much tilted in favor of the power company,” while noting that “there is compensation offered.” Both accounts can be accurate: forced takings are rare, and the bargaining position is uneven.

    Who the Line Serves Depends on Which Number You Read

    Georgia Power says it is “not in the data center business.” It says the Ashley Park-Wansley line will serve the broader needs of the communities and customers who rely on reliable service. CBS reported that 70% to 80% of the power from this particular line would go to AI data centers. A Georgia Power representative was unable to confirm that estimate.

    At the portfolio level the question is less open. In December 2025 the Public Service Commission and Georgia Power agreed to certify nearly 10,000 megawatts of new generation, and the agreement said approximately 80% of it is expected to power data centers. Transmission lines are shared assets, and the same wires feed homes, hospitals and server halls. The utility’s framing is therefore defensible for any single line. Still, the regulator-approved document says the new demand justifying this much new capacity comes mostly from data centers.

    The distinction matters because eminent domain rests on public use. The more visibly new corridors are tied to a small number of very large customers, the more utilities and regulators have to show the broader benefit. The $102 savings projection plays exactly that role.

    Georgia’s Welcome for Data Centers Is Getting Conditional

    Georgia hosts more than 200 operational data centers, nearly 170 of them in Atlanta, including facilities owned by Microsoft, Amazon and Google. A sales and use tax exemption dating to 2018 waives 100% of state and local sales and use taxes on equipment purchases for projects that meet a minimum investment of $100 million to $250 million. In 2024 lawmakers voted to suspend new exemptions, and Governor Brian Kemp vetoed the measure. A December 2025 evaluation by the University of Georgia’s Carl Vinson Institute of Government projected the exemption’s net fiscal impact at roughly negative $574 million.

    Georgia is now scrutinizing its tax incentives, charging large loads more, and facing land disputes in public view. The pattern for operators is that the state remains open to data centers but is pricing more of their wider costs explicitly. “The policy direction has clearly shifted,” said J. Thomas Perdue, a policy analyst at the Georgia Public Policy Foundation. For developers weighing sites, power in Georgia increasingly comes with public questions about who bears the cost of delivering it.

    Background

    Georgia Power is the state’s largest electric utility and a subsidiary of Southern Company. It plans its generation and transmission through an Integrated Resource Plan, a long-range forecast of demand and the resources needed to meet it. The plan requires approval from the Georgia Public Service Commission, the elected body that regulates the state’s utilities. The commission approved the 2025 plan, which cited continued power needs driven by AI investment. In December 2025 it certified nearly 10,000 megawatts of new generation. It also approved a formal process to evaluate grid-enhancing technologies that can squeeze more capacity from existing lines.

    Georgia has courted data centers since 2018 through sales and use tax exemptions and now hosts more than 200 operating facilities, most of them around Atlanta. Legislative support has cooled: a 2024 vote to suspend new exemptions was vetoed, and a 2025 state-commissioned evaluation found the incentive to be a net fiscal cost. Eminent domain, the power to take private property for public use with just compensation, is available to utilities building infrastructure. Georgia Power says it treats it as a last resort.

    Sources

    Source: ‘My childhood home is being taken’: Eminent domain for data centers targets properties across a thousand miles of grid expansion in Georgia (Fortune, July 26, 2026). The article reports on Georgia Power’s land acquisition for the Ashley Park-Wansley line and its broader 1,000-mile transmission plan.

  • White House Seeks AI Power Cost Pledge From Utilities and Data Centers

    White House Seeks AI Power Cost Pledge From Utilities and Data Centers

    Reuters reported on July 12, 2026, citing sources, that the White House intends to rally electric utilities and data center operators behind a pledge addressing the power costs associated with artificial intelligence. The report frames the effort as a response to growing concern that the AI build-out is putting upward pressure on electricity bills.

    No official announcement accompanied the report, and the text, participants, and timing of any pledge had not been made public at the time of writing.

    Executive Summary

    According to the Reuters report, the administration is convening two industries whose interests increasingly collide on the electric grid: the utilities that must build generation and transmission to serve surging demand, and the hyperscale data center operators whose AI workloads are driving much of that demand. A “power cost pledge” — the report’s shorthand — suggests a voluntary commitment aimed at reassuring the public that households will not shoulder the cost of AI’s electricity appetite.

    The move matters because it signals that data center power demand has fully crossed from an industry planning question into a national political one. When the White House feels compelled to broker a public commitment on electricity costs, it reflects pressure from ratepayers, state regulators, and elected officials who are hearing about rising bills from constituents.

    It also matters for what it is not: a report based on unnamed sources, describing a voluntary pledge whose contents are unknown. Whether this becomes a substantive cost-allocation framework or a reputational exercise depends entirely on details that had not yet been disclosed.

    Why Electricity Bills Became an AI Problem

    The AI boom has made data centers one of the fastest-growing sources of new electricity demand in the United States, reversing roughly two decades in which overall power consumption was largely flat. Serving that growth requires new power plants, new transmission lines, and grid upgrades — and under traditional utility regulation, those costs are spread across all customers through rates approved by state commissions. That is the mechanism at the heart of the ratepayer backlash: households can end up helping pay for infrastructure built primarily to serve a handful of very large industrial customers.

    Utilities and data center operators counter that large customers typically sign long-term contracts, often pay for dedicated interconnection upgrades, and can anchor investments that benefit the whole grid. Both framings contain truth, and which one dominates in a given state depends on tariff design — the specific rate structures regulators approve. A federal pledge would be entering a debate that is normally fought state by state, utility by utility.

    What a Voluntary Pledge Can — and Cannot — Do

    Voluntary pledges are a familiar Washington instrument: they move quickly, require no legislation, and give all parties a public commitment to point to. If the pledge commits data center operators to pay the full incremental cost of serving their load — through special tariff classes, minimum-take contracts, or funding their own generation — it could genuinely shift cost risk away from households. Several utilities and states have already been moving in this direction through large-load tariffs, so a pledge could standardize and accelerate an existing trend.

    The limits are equally clear. A pledge cannot override state ratemaking authority; electricity rates are set by state public utility commissions, not the White House. It carries no enforcement mechanism unless one is built in. And “power cost” commitments are only as strong as their accounting: transmission, capacity, and reliability costs are notoriously difficult to attribute to a single customer class, which gives every party room to claim compliance. Analysts and consumer advocates will reasonably ask who verifies the math.

    Winners, Losers, and the Politics of Grid Cost Allocation

    For hyperscalers, a pledge is likely a price worth paying. Their binding constraint is speed of interconnection — how fast new facilities can get grid connections and power. A public commitment on costs could defuse local opposition and regulatory friction that currently slow projects. For utilities, the calculus is similar: demand growth is the best earnings story the sector has had in decades, and anything that keeps the political environment permissive protects that story.

    The open question is what ratepayer advocates get. If the pledge produces binding tariff structures and transparent cost attribution, consumers benefit. If it produces language without accounting, the underlying dispute simply resurfaces in the next rate case. Smaller data center operators and AI startups also warrant attention: cost-allocation rules designed around hyperscalers can inadvertently raise barriers for firms without the balance sheet to fund their own substations or sign decade-long power contracts.

    Background

    Since the generative AI boom began in late 2022, hyperscale cloud providers and AI companies have raced to build data center capacity across the United States, turning electricity availability into the industry’s defining constraint. After decades of roughly flat national power demand, utilities now face sustained load growth, and the question of who pays for the required generation and transmission has become a flashpoint in state rate cases and local permitting fights.

    Both federal and state policymakers have increasingly engaged with the issue — from grid interconnection reform to utility proposals for special large-load tariffs — as electricity affordability has risen on the political agenda. The reported White House pledge effort sits squarely in that context: an attempt to get ahead of ratepayer backlash without new legislation.

    Source: White House to rally utilities, data centers for AI power cost pledge, sources say — Reuters report, July 12, 2026, on a planned White House effort to secure a voluntary commitment on AI-related electricity costs.

  • With Rates Up 16%+, New Jersey Makes Grid Upgrades an AI Data Center Site Cost

    With Rates Up 16%+, New Jersey Makes Grid Upgrades an AI Data Center Site Cost

    TL;DR · 30-second read

    The Short Version

    New Jersey’s governor has signed a law that makes large data centers, the warehouse-sized buildings full of computers that run artificial intelligence and online services, pay for the power lines and equipment they need.

    Until now, families worried those costs would land on their own electric bills. Power prices in the state have already climbed more than 16 percent since 2024.

    The catch for tech companies: plugging into the grid in New Jersey now costs them more directly, and that could shape where they choose to build.

    New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill signed a package of energy legislation in the week of July 6, 2026, WHYY reported. The centerpiece creates a separate electricity ratepayer class for data centers and requires them to pay for the electrical and clean energy infrastructure upgrades their projects create. The goal is to keep those costs from being passed on to households and small businesses.

    The package also includes a “Repeal ROE Adder” bill, which requires electric utilities to join the regional grid and bars them from charging customers an extra “bonus” for doing so. It also includes the Advanced Grid Technologies Act, which directs state utility regulators to scrutinize “supplemental” grid projects and speeds approval of projects that use advanced transmission technologies.

    Executive Summary

    New Jersey has written into law a principle that is fast becoming the central fight of the AI buildout: who pays when a data center needs the grid to grow. By putting data centers in their own rate class and assigning them the cost of the upgrades they trigger, the state turns what could have been a cost spread across all customers into a line item on the developer’s budget.

    The political backdrop is electricity prices. Rates in New Jersey have risen more than 16% since 2024, according to a U.S. Senate committee report, and the U.S. Energy Information Administration counted 128,828 electricity shutoffs in the state in 2024. PJM Interconnection, which runs the regional grid, has cited data center growth as one reason for higher bills.

    The Data Center Coalition says its members are committed to paying the full cost of the energy they use. Its concern is that the law’s structure could make New Jersey less predictable and less competitive. The details regulators write next will largely decide which side’s expectations prove right.

    Grid Upgrades Move From the Shared Bill to the Project Budget

    The mechanism is simple to state. A “rate class” is a group of customers that a utility bills under the same set of prices; residential, commercial and industrial users typically sit in different classes. By creating a dedicated class for data centers, New Jersey can price their energy use separately, so costs driven by data center demand stay with data centers rather than flowing into everyone else’s rates. The second provision is more consequential for builders: data centers must pay for the electrical and clean energy infrastructure upgrades they create. New substations, feeder lines and transformer capacity needed to serve a large AI campus become a cost the developer carries.

    That changes the economics of choosing a site. An AI data center developer choosing between locations weighs land, fiber, water, tax treatment and, above all, how quickly and cheaply it can get power. In New Jersey, the “cheaply” part now explicitly includes the upgrade bill. Colocation operators (companies that build facilities and lease space to tenants) and the large cloud and AI companies that lease or build capacity will price that obligation into their comparisons with other locations in the PJM region. How large the effect is depends on how regulators define the new class and calculate upgrade costs, which the law’s sponsors have not yet spelled out in public.

    The legislators’ case rests on household affordability. Assemblyman Dave Bailey, a sponsor, framed the bill as “preventing households and small businesses from paying for data centers to connect to the grid.” With rates up more than 16% since 2024 and six-figure shutoff counts, the state has chosen to make the connecting customer, not the existing customer base, absorb the risk of the upgrades.

    The Industry’s Objection Is About Design, Not Payment

    The Data Center Coalition’s response is notable for what it concedes. The trade group did not argue that data centers should avoid these costs; it said members are committed to paying the full cost of the energy they use. Its argument is that any approach should “align costs with cost causation,” meaning each customer pays for the costs it actually causes. It also argued that protections should be “evidence-based” and “grounded in specific cost risks,” warning that anything else risks “market friction” and uncertainty.

    That is a fair question to put to the law, and a fair one to put back to the industry. Supporters have pointed to PJM’s view that data centers are pushing up bills, but in their public statements they have not put a figure on how much of New Jersey’s rate increase is attributable to data centers. The coalition, for its part, cited unnamed “other markets” as a workable model without saying which rules it would accept in New Jersey. Both sides agree on the principle that data centers should pay their way. The dispute is over how precisely that is measured, and whether rules written broadly in advance will deter investment that tightly targeted rules would not.

    The Utility Half of the Package

    The package does not target only data centers. The “Repeal ROE Adder” bill addresses a feature of utility pricing. Return on equity (ROE) is the profit rate regulators allow a utility to earn on its investments, and an “adder” is a bonus on top of that rate, in this case one tied to joining the regional grid. The law requires utilities to join and removes the extra charge to customers for doing so.

    The Advanced Grid Technologies Act points in two directions at once. It tightens oversight of “supplemental” projects, the wires, poles and substations utilities build outside the regional planning process, to screen out spending that raises bills without clear need. It also speeds approval for projects using advanced transmission technologies, a broad category of equipment and software that can move more power over existing lines. For data center developers, that second provision could eventually matter as much as the cost rules: faster approval of capacity upgrades can shorten the wait for power, which is often the binding constraint on an AI project’s timeline.

    A State Law Inside a Regional Grid

    New Jersey sits inside PJM, a wholesale market and grid that spans multiple states. A state law can decide how costs are allocated among a utility’s retail customers. It cannot on its own change wholesale power prices set regionally or the capacity pressures PJM has flagged. The law is therefore best read as an allocation tool: it decides who absorbs the local costs of growth, not whether that growth strains the regional system.

    That distinction matters for residents and investors alike. Households may be shielded from the local upgrade costs a new data center triggers. They remain exposed to regional supply-and-demand pressures and weather-driven price spikes, which also drove last winter’s bills. Developers, meanwhile, now face a clearer but potentially higher cost of entry in New Jersey than in neighboring locations with different rules.

    Background

    Data centers house the servers that power online services, storage and, increasingly, artificial intelligence. They have existed since the mid-20th century, but the AI boom has driven demand for larger sites and far more electricity. In the mid-Atlantic, that demand lands on the grid run by PJM Interconnection, which has linked data center growth to higher power bills.

    New Jersey has seen electricity prices climb sharply. Last winter’s freezing weather added to bills, but rate increases have also been driven by an imbalance between supply and demand and slow construction of new generation. Supporters of data centers point to tax revenue, while some residents have raised concerns about air quality, water use and electricity costs.

    Sources

    Source: N.J. Gov. Sherrill signs legislation to make data centers pay for infrastructure, energy – WHYY, reporting on New Jersey’s new data center rate class, grid upgrade cost rules and related utility legislation.

  • Georgia’s 10 GW Data Center Build Shows the Next Who-Pays Fight Is Over Fuel

    Georgia’s 10 GW Data Center Build Shows the Next Who-Pays Fight Is Over Fuel

    TL;DR · 30-second read

    The Short Version

    Georgia’s utility regulators are investigating whether giant data centers, the warehouse-sized computer buildings behind artificial intelligence tools, pay their fair share of the cost of fuel for power plants.

    The state has already approved new power plants with nearly five times the output of its two newest nuclear reactors, mostly to serve data centers. Consumer groups say ordinary households may be paying to get fuel to those plants, even though they are only being expanded because of data centers.

    Hearings start in September. The answer could show up on Georgia power bills.

    WABE reported on July 8, 2026, that the Georgia Public Service Commission has opened an investigation into how Georgia Power’s largest customers, including data centers, pay for the fuel that runs the utility’s power plants. The probe examines the Real-Time Pricing (RTP) methodology used to bill those customers for fuel. Its first round of hearings is scheduled for September.

    The investigation grew out of this year’s fuel-rate proceedings for residential and small-business customers. Those proceedings ended in an agreement that lowered the fuel rate and called for a review of RTP. The probe covers Georgia Power only, not the state’s other utilities. Advocacy groups, including Georgia Conservation Voters Education Fund, welcomed the move.

    Executive Summary

    Georgia’s utility regulator has formally opened a question it had so far left aside in its data center policy: who pays for fuel. The commission has already approved about ten gigawatts of new generating capacity, mostly for forecast data center demand. It has also approved contract terms meant to make large customers pay for infrastructure built to serve them. The new investigation turns to operating costs, and specifically to the cost of getting fuel to newly expanded power plants.

    The mechanism at issue is billing. Residential and small-business customers pay a fuel rate. Data centers and other large users pay for fuel under Real-Time Pricing. Consumer advocates argue that this split leaves other Georgians carrying costs that exist only because of data center growth. The commission will now test that argument in hearings beginning in September.

    The outcome matters beyond one tariff. Georgia is one of the country’s fastest-growing markets for hyperscale data center load. How it allocates fuel costs will affect the long-run energy price data center developers face there, and the bills of the households and small businesses that share the same grid.

    Georgia Already Priced the Plants. Fuel Is the Open Line.

    The commission’s recent data center decisions have focused on capacity: the power plants and grid equipment needed to meet future demand. Late in 2025 it approved about ten gigawatts of new capacity to serve the higher demand Georgia Power is predicting, mostly from data centers. A gigawatt is roughly the output of a large power plant, and the approved total is nearly five times the capacity of the new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle. Earlier in 2025 the commission approved contract terms to help ensure that data centers and other large customers pay for infrastructure built to serve them. Georgia Power has also said it will cover costs if the predicted data center demand does not materialize.

    Those measures address who pays to build. The new investigation addresses who pays to run the plants, and in particular the cost of delivering fuel to newly expanded ones. Critics raised that cost during this year’s fuel hearings as the one slipping through the cracks, and it now has a formal proceeding of its own. This is the sense in which the next who-pays fight is over fuel. The capital side of the ten-gigawatt build already has a cost-allocation framework, however contested. The fuel side is where the allocation rules are now being reopened.

    The shift changes what each party has to argue about. Capacity disputes turn on demand forecasts and contract terms signed before a facility is energized. Fuel disputes turn on tariff design and cost accounting that play out over the years a plant runs. For a developer planning load in Georgia, the connection terms were the headline risk. The lifetime price of energy is now also under review. For households, fuel charges are generally passed through to customers at cost, so any shift in allocation reaches monthly bills directly. That direct link is why the issue surfaced in the residential fuel-rate case.

    How Real-Time Pricing Can Split the Fuel Bill

    Georgia Power’s residential and small-business customers pay for fuel through a fuel rate set in periodic proceedings before the commission. Large customers such as data centers pay for fuel under Real-Time Pricing. In general, real-time pricing tariffs charge a price that tracks the utility’s cost of producing electricity hour by hour, instead of a flat, averaged fuel charge.

    Consumer advocates argue that this arrangement leaves other Georgians paying for fuel infrastructure that is being built only because of data center demand. Their reasoning runs as follows. Getting fuel to an expanded plant carries costs of its own, and those costs can be committed in advance whether or not the fuel is burned in a given hour. Suppose those costs land in the averaged fuel rate, while the largest new users pay for fuel under a methodology that does not carry them the same way. Then the customers on the averaged rate absorb them. Whether Georgia’s RTP methodology actually works this way is what the investigation is meant to establish.

    The stakes grow with the buildout. The larger the share of new demand billed through RTP, the more its treatment of fuel-delivery costs matters to everyone else on the system. With roughly ten gigawatts approved largely on the strength of data center forecasts, the question stops being a narrow tariff detail. It becomes a material cost-allocation issue.

    What Each Side Still Has to Show

    The advocates’ concern is coherent on its mechanics. The September hearings are where it needs a figure: how much fuel-delivery cost is attributable to data center-driven expansion, and how much of that RTP customers already cover. As Ja’Mae Rooks of Georgia Conservation Voters Education Fund put it, “Georgians deserve to understand exactly who is paying for the massive growth in electricity demand from data centers, and who isn’t.” That standard applies in both directions. Establishing who is not paying requires the same cost data as establishing who is.

    The burden also falls on the utility and its large customers. If RTP already recovers these costs, the hearings are the place to show it with numbers. Georgia Power’s pledge to cover costs if data center demand fails to materialize addresses a different risk: infrastructure left underused. On its face, that pledge says nothing about ongoing fuel costs when the demand does arrive.

    The political setting raises the proceeding’s profile. Commission seats are on the 2026 ballot, and recent races have been framed around power bill increases. The result, though, will turn on the cost record the parties put before the commission, not on the campaign.

    A Test Case Worth Watching, Not Yet a Trend

    Georgia’s sequence gives other regulators a view of where cost questions surface after the first round of protections is in place. The order was capacity approvals, then contract protections for infrastructure, then a review of fuel methodology. Operating-cost allocation is harder to fix in a contract signed before a data center goes live, because it depends on how plants run and what fuel costs over many years.

    This is still one utility in one state, and the investigation has reached no finding. It is too early to say that fuel allocation will become a standard battleground wherever hyperscale load is growing. What Georgia does establish is that a utility can put infrastructure cost protections in place and still leave operating-cost allocation open for review.

    Background

    Georgia Power, a subsidiary of Southern Company, is Georgia’s largest electric utility. It is regulated by the Georgia Public Service Commission, whose elected commissioners set the rates the utility charges. In recent years the utility completed two new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle, and it has since forecast large demand growth driven mostly by data centers, including hyperscale facilities used for generative AI.

    To meet that forecast, the commission approved about ten gigawatts of new capacity in late 2025. Earlier that year it approved contract terms intended to make large customers pay for infrastructure built to serve them. Power costs have become a political issue in the state, with commission elections in 2026 framed around recent bill increases.

    Sources

    Source: Georgia regulators to investigate data center energy costs (WABE). The article reports on the Georgia Public Service Commission’s probe into how data centers and other large Georgia Power customers pay for fuel.

  • Brookings: Data Center Backlash Signals a Coming Fight Over AI’s Power Demand

    Brookings: Data Center Backlash Signals a Coming Fight Over AI’s Power Demand

    The Brookings Institution, a Washington-based public policy think tank, published an analysis on July 7, 2026 arguing that the wave of local opposition to data center construction across the United States is more than scattered NIMBY friction — it is an early signal of a broader political and economic fight over how much electricity artificial intelligence will consume, and who will pay for it.

    Executive Summary

    According to the piece’s framing, communities near proposed data center campuses are increasingly pushing back on projects through zoning hearings, moratoriums, and local elections. Brookings connects these disputes to the underlying driver: AI workloads require enormous amounts of electricity, and the infrastructure to deliver it — generation, transmission lines, and substations — lands in specific towns and counties whose residents did not sign up for it.

    Why it matters: the data center industry has historically won siting battles on the strength of tax revenue and jobs arguments. If Brookings is right that opposition is hardening into an organized, durable political force, the industry’s expansion model — fast site acquisition, utility-negotiated power deals, and light-touch local engagement — may need to change. For an industry racing to build AI capacity, the constraint may prove to be not capital or chips, but community consent and grid access.

    The Grid Is Where AI Meets Local Politics

    Data centers are unusual among industrial facilities: they consume power on the scale of heavy manufacturing while employing relatively few permanent workers. That asymmetry is at the heart of the backlash Brookings describes. A large AI campus can draw as much electricity as a small city, which means new transmission lines, new substations, and in some regions new generation — all of which are visible, local, and subject to public process. AI is often discussed as an abstract technology; the grid is where it becomes a land-use question that a county board can vote on.

    This gives local governments real leverage. Zoning approvals, special-use permits, and utility interconnection queues are choke points where a project can be delayed for years or killed outright. The industry has long treated these as procedural hurdles; the Brookings framing suggests they are becoming political contests.

    Ratepayers, Tax Deals, and the Question of Who Pays

    The economics beneath the backlash deserve attention. When a utility builds infrastructure to serve a massive new load, the cost recovery question — does the data center operator pay its full share, or do costs get socialized across all ratepayers — is decided in regulatory proceedings most residents never see. Where residents perceive that their electric bills are rising to serve a tech company’s servers, opposition tends to sharpen. Several state utility commissions have begun creating special large-load rate classes to address exactly this concern, an implicit acknowledgment that the old cost-allocation model strains under AI-scale demand.

    Tax abatements cut the same way. Data centers are frequently recruited with incentive packages, and critics ask whether the revenue and job numbers justify them. Operators who can demonstrate full cost-of-service payment and transparent community benefit will be better positioned than those relying on confidentiality agreements and after-the-fact announcements.

    What Hardening Opposition Means for the Buildout

    If backlash becomes systematic, expect three shifts. First, siting migrates toward jurisdictions that actively want the load — regions with surplus generation, declining industrial demand, or explicit pro-data-center policy. Second, timelines lengthen and carry more political risk, which favors operators with existing land banks, secured power, and strong community track records over new entrants assembling projects from scratch. Third, self-supplied power — on-site generation, long-term clean energy contracts, and eventually small modular reactors — becomes more attractive precisely because it reduces the project’s visible draw on the shared grid.

    None of this stops the AI buildout; demand is too strong. But it changes who can build, where, and how fast — and it rewards the operators who treat community engagement and grid stewardship as core competencies rather than public relations.

    Background

    Data centers — the warehouse-scale buildings full of servers that run websites, cloud services, and AI models — have expanded rapidly since generative AI took off in late 2022, with hyperscale operators and specialized developers announcing successive waves of multi-gigawatt campuses across the United States. Electricity availability has replaced land and fiber as the industry’s primary constraint, pulling utilities, state regulators, and local governments into what was once a quiet corner of commercial real estate. Northern Virginia, the world’s largest data center market, became an early flashpoint for community opposition, and similar disputes have since surfaced in markets across the country, making siting politics a national story that policy institutions like Brookings now track.

    Source: Data center backlash signals a fight over AI power — Brookings, an analysis by the Brookings Institution on local opposition to data center development and the politics of AI’s electricity demand, published July 7, 2026.

  • PJM Moves to Manage Data Center Demand: A Turning Point for AI Power

    PJM Moves to Manage Data Center Demand: A Turning Point for AI Power

    Reuters reported on June 30, 2026 that PJM Interconnection — the largest power grid operator in the United States, coordinating electricity across 13 states and the District of Columbia for roughly 65 million people — is moving toward actively managing data center demand on its system. The report signals a shift from treating data centers as ordinary customers whose consumption must simply be served, toward a framework in which the grid operator can shape when and how much power the largest new loads draw.

    Details of the mechanism, timeline, and scope were not spelled out in the headline announcement, but the direction alone is consequential: PJM’s territory includes Northern Virginia’s “Data Center Alley,” the densest concentration of data centers in the world, and the region at the center of the AI-driven surge in U.S. electricity demand.

    Executive Summary

    According to Reuters, PJM is taking steps toward managing data center demand rather than passively absorbing it. For decades, U.S. grid planning worked on a simple premise: customers decide how much electricity they need, and the grid builds to serve it. AI data centers — single facilities that can draw hundreds of megawatts, comparable to a small city — have broken that premise. Interconnection queues are backed up, capacity prices in PJM’s markets have surged, and the gap between how fast data centers can be built (one to two years) and how fast power plants and transmission can be built (five to ten years) keeps widening.

    Moving to “manage” that demand means the operator of America’s biggest wholesale power market is preparing tools — potentially ranging from voluntary demand-response participation to conditions on new large-load interconnections to curtailment provisions, though the report does not specify which — to control the timing and firmness of data center consumption. That matters far beyond PJM’s footprint: as the largest grid and the home of the world’s biggest data center cluster, PJM’s rules tend to become the template other regions study.

    For the data center industry, the message is that access to the grid is no longer an unconditional entitlement. Flexibility — the ability to shift, shed, or self-supply load — is becoming a bargaining chip in getting connected at all.

    From Passive Host to Active Manager

    Grid operators like PJM are regional transmission organizations (RTOs): nonprofit entities that run the wholesale electricity market and the high-voltage network across their territory, under rules approved by federal regulators. Historically, their job was to forecast demand and make sure supply met it. Demand itself was treated as a given. A move toward managing data center demand inverts that relationship for the first time at this scale — the grid operator would have a say in how the largest customers consume, not just how generators produce.

    The trigger is arithmetic. Load growth in PJM was essentially flat for nearly two decades; AI data centers ended that era abruptly. When a single campus can request as much power as a steel mill or a small utility’s entire service territory, and dozens of such requests arrive at once, the traditional “build to serve” model produces either reliability risk or enormous costs socialized across all ratepayers. Managing demand is the third option: make the new load itself part of the reliability solution.

    The Economics of Curtailable Compute

    The core idea behind demand management is that not every megawatt-hour of computing is equally urgent. AI training runs can, in principle, pause or shift in time; some workloads can migrate between facilities in different regions. If data centers agree to reduce consumption during the few dozen hours a year when the grid is most stressed, the system needs less peak capacity — which is exactly the product whose price has been surging in PJM’s capacity auctions, the market where power plants are paid to be available.

    The unresolved tension is that most data center operators sell their customers uninterrupted uptime, and inference workloads serving live users are far harder to pause than training. Whether flexibility is genuinely available at scale — and at what price data center operators would sell it — is the open economic question. If PJM’s framework rewards flexible loads with faster interconnection or lower costs, it effectively creates a market price for interruptibility, and data center designs will adapt to capture it: more batteries, more on-site generation, more workload-orchestration software.

    Winners, Losers, and the Ratepayer Question

    Developers with flexible-by-design facilities, on-site generation, or storage stand to gain priority in a demand-managed regime. Operators marketing strict 24/7 firmness with no curtailment tolerance may face slower interconnection or higher costs. Utilities and generators face a subtler effect: managed demand blunts the extreme scarcity that has driven capacity prices up, which helps consumers but trims the windfall that scarcity was delivering to existing power plants.

    For households and businesses in PJM’s 13-state footprint, the stakes are direct. Capacity costs flow into retail electricity bills, and the politics of ordinary ratepayers subsidizing infrastructure for the world’s wealthiest technology companies have grown sharp. A credible demand-management framework is partly a political instrument: it lets PJM tell states and consumers that data centers are being asked to carry reliability risk, not just impose it. Whether the framework has real teeth — mandatory obligations versus voluntary programs — will determine whether that assurance holds up.

    A Template Other Grids Will Study

    PJM is not acting in a vacuum. Texas’s ERCOT grid, the other major destination for large flexible loads, has been developing its own approach to interconnecting and, when necessary, curtailing very large customers. When the two biggest data center markets in the country both condition grid access on demand flexibility, it stops being an experiment and becomes the emerging national norm. Data center site selection, financing models, and colocation contracts will all have to price in a world where the grid can ask the largest computers on Earth to throttle down.

    Background

    PJM Interconnection, headquartered in Pennsylvania, grew from a 1927 power pool into the largest regional transmission organization in the United States, dispatching generation and running wholesale power markets across a footprint from Illinois to the mid-Atlantic. Its territory includes Northern Virginia, where decades of fiber density and proximity to federal and enterprise customers created “Data Center Alley” — the largest data center market in the world.

    The generative-AI boom that accelerated from 2023 onward transformed data centers from a steady, modest slice of electricity demand into the dominant driver of U.S. load growth, ending a long era of flat consumption. PJM’s capacity auctions delivered record-high prices as demand forecasts jumped, interconnection requests piled up, and state officials began questioning who should bear the cost. The June 2026 move toward managing data center demand is the institutional response to that collision between AI’s growth curve and the grid’s construction timelines.

    Source: Biggest US power grid PJM moves towards managing data center demand — Reuters report, June 30, 2026, on PJM Interconnection’s move toward actively managing data center electricity demand.

  • Louisiana’s $1.8B Plant Fight Shows Who Really Decides AI Data Center Power Costs

    Louisiana’s $1.8B Plant Fight Shows Who Really Decides AI Data Center Power Costs

    TL;DR · 30-second read

    The Short Version

    Louisiana is competing hard for data centers, the giant computer warehouses that run artificial intelligence and use enormous amounts of electricity.

    Governor Jeff Landry signed an order saying such projects should lose a state tax break if they push up everyone else’s power bills.

    The catch: the biggest bill on the table is a $1.8 billion Texas power plant that the state’s largest utility wants to buy, largely to serve a Meta data center. The order does not touch it. The state’s elected utility regulators decide that one, and they are leaning toward no.

    Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry signed an executive order on June 25, 2026, directing Louisiana Economic Development Secretary Susan Bourgeois to write, within 90 days, new requirements that data centers must meet to claim the state’s Data Center Sales and Use Tax Exemption, the Louisiana Illuminator reported. Under the order, data centers that cause electricity prices to rise across the grid should not qualify for the break unless other benefits outweigh the higher prices.

    The order arrives amid a dispute over Entergy Louisiana’s proposed $1.8 billion purchase of the Cottonwood power plant in Newton County, Texas, a price more than three times what the plant sold for in 2024. A consultant to the Louisiana Public Service Commission attributed that increase predominantly to the power needs of Meta’s Hyperion data center in Northeast Louisiana. The order explicitly does not apply to Entergy’s generation plans.

    Executive Summary

    Landry’s order puts Louisiana in the group of states trying to court hyperscale data centers (the very large campuses built by major cloud and AI companies) while promising that households will not subsidize their electricity. It does this through an economic development lever: a sales tax exemption that projects must now earn by showing they will not raise grid-wide power prices, or that their benefits outweigh any increase.

    The order’s reach, however, stops short of the decision that currently matters most to ratepayers. Entergy Louisiana’s plan to buy the Cottonwood plant, which consultant Lane Sisung projected would significantly raise monthly bills for the utility’s 1.1 million customers, is before the Public Service Commission, and the order states it does not limit the commission’s authority. That split between the tax lever and the rate lever is the story’s central point for anyone building, financing or siting AI infrastructure in the state.

    The Order Polices a Tax Break, Not a Power Plant

    The mechanism in Landry’s order is a condition on a tax incentive. Secretary Bourgeois has 90 days to set requirements for the Data Center Sales and Use Tax Exemption that balance investor interests with residents’ electricity costs. A project that raises prices across the grid is meant to lose eligibility unless its other benefits outweigh that effect. That is a gate for future incentive claims, administered by the state’s economic development agency.

    The largest cost item currently in view runs through a different gate. Entergy Louisiana’s proposed $1.8 billion purchase of the Cottonwood plant in Texas, more than triple its 2024 sale price, is a generation decision regulated by the Public Service Commission. Sisung’s analysis for the commission said the price increase is predominantly attributable to power demand from Meta’s Hyperion data center, and projected significant monthly bill increases for Entergy Louisiana’s 1.1 million ratepayers if the deal proceeds. The order says it does not apply to Entergy’s generation plans and does not impair the commission’s constitutional or statutory authority.

    So whether those 1.1 million customers absorb costs tied to Hyperion’s load will be settled by five elected commissioners, not by the executive order. Republicans hold a 3-2 majority on the commission and have said they are inclined to follow Sisung’s advice against approving the purchase. For developers and utilities, the practical reading is that Louisiana now has two venues for data center cost questions, and the one with direct control over rates is the commission.

    Why an Incentive Condition Is Useful but Indirect

    Tying a tax break to grid effects is not empty. Incentives are negotiated before a site is chosen, so a cost test attached to them can shape project terms early, for example by encouraging developers to fund their own generation or accept tariffs that assign new-capacity costs to them. That is leverage a governor has and a commission does not.

    The limits are equally clear. Generation needed to serve a large new customer is typically committed through utility agreements and regulatory approvals that the incentive does not govern. Whether a project “causes energy prices to rise across the grid” is also a modeling question, and the order’s balancing test, which allows other benefits to outweigh higher prices, leaves room for judgment. How strict the rule proves to be depends on requirements that have not yet been written.

    Every Side’s Claims Deserve the Same Scrutiny

    Entergy and Meta have said they disagree with Sisung’s assessment, and Landry has said the Cottonwood proposal would breach promises both companies made not to shift electricity costs to ratepayers. The companies’ disagreement is a claim that needs the same testing as the consultant’s conclusion; the commission’s proceeding is where that evidence should be weighed. Entergy Louisiana CEO Phillip May attended the signing and accepted a copy of the order, while the governor said he had not changed his view on Cottonwood.

    The critics’ claims also warrant scrutiny. Commissioner Davante Lewis called the event a “PR stunt” and criticized closed-door data center deals. Jackson Voss of the Alliance for Affordable Energy supported the goal but said Landry pressed the commission last year to shorten its review of Entergy’s power agreement with Meta under the governor’s Lightning Speed Initiative. The Sierra Club called the order “hollow.” The Lightning Speed critique goes to how the current cost question arose; the “hollow” charge is a prediction about rules not yet published, and it can be tested against them once they are.

    What It Signals for Hyperscale Siting

    For companies evaluating Louisiana, the order adds a cost-allocation test to a financial incentive that matters in site selection. Developers should expect to document grid effects when claiming the exemption, and should treat utility and commission proceedings as the place where their power costs, and who pays them, are ultimately fixed.

    The episode also shows the tension facing any state pursuing AI buildout: the order describes data centers as a once-in-a-generation opportunity for rural growth while acknowledging that their power demand can raise costs for existing customers. Louisiana’s answer so far splits that problem between two institutions, and the commission’s Cottonwood decision will be the first real test.

    Background

    Louisiana has actively recruited large data center projects, most prominently Meta’s Hyperion campus in Northeast Louisiana, which Entergy Louisiana has agreed to supply with power. Gov. Jeff Landry’s Lightning Speed Initiative was created to accelerate permitting for Big Tech and AI investments, and the state offers a Data Center Sales and Use Tax Exemption as an incentive.

    Electricity rates for Entergy Louisiana’s 1.1 million customers are set by the Louisiana Public Service Commission, an elected five-member body with constitutional authority over utilities. The commission is now reviewing Entergy’s proposed $1.8 billion Cottonwood plant purchase, the first major test of whether costs tied to data center demand will reach household bills.

    Sources

    Source: Landry signs order to protect utility customers as he promotes more data center development — Louisiana Illuminator report on Gov. Jeff Landry’s June 25, 2026 executive order tying the state’s data center tax exemption to electricity costs.