Data centers have hiked electricity prices on the public by $23B

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 15, 2026, 4:48 AM UTC

mlindner wrote: post #64

khriss wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but why should regular people pay for the upgrades needed to power data centers? The tech companies can surely afford that easily given their record profits for the past decade?

Forcing all costs on to new entrants in a market is generally a bad thing for the market and causes it to not expand fast enough. Also they may just choose to not participate in the market at all. I.e they'll bring in a whole lot of natural gas generators, put them in the parking lot and call it good, which is not a good thing long term.

Post by njovin » Wed, Jul 15, 2026, 4:53 AM UTC

mukbangpervert wrote: post #78

kmod wrote: post #54

This $23B number that gets thrown around is not the increase to the public. The wording in the referenced report is > Based on actual auction clearing prices and quantities and uplift MW, inclusion of existing and forecast data center load growth resulted in a combined total increase in capacity market revenue for the 2025/2026 BRA, the 2026/2027 BRA, and the 2027/2028 BRA of $23,100,955,341. This is the increase in…

Or how about this framing (using your own numbers): for every dollar a datacenter is charged for electricity, regular hard-working Americans get charged $2.

Post by mukbangpervert » Wed, Jul 15, 2026, 4:56 AM UTC

njovin wrote: post #83

mukbangpervert wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or how about this framing (using your own numbers): for every dollar a datacenter is charged for electricity, regular hard-working Americans get charged $2.

First they gave all the water away for free to big ag, and now they're doing the same with the power.

Post by rapidaneurism » Wed, Jul 15, 2026, 4:56 AM UTC

ip26 wrote: post #23

SoftTalker wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where I live, if a developer wants to build a subdivision, they pay for the water and sewer lines. They pay to connect those lines to the city infrastructure. If the city infrastructure needs to be upgraded to handle the new volumes, they pay for at least a proportionate share of that too. The ongoing maintenance becomes part of the city's budget eventually, but not the costs of the build out. All those costs go into…

The “affordable” housing thing seems like such a misdirection. I can’t help but daydream that some moneyed interest somewhere fans those flames, as it looks like a dead end that can absorb endless fervor. You know what you do if you want an affordable car? You buy used. I think most people understand Ford is never going to build another a car that costs $10k brand new, and the last new car near that price barely sold…

Post by blackqueeriroh » Wed, Jul 15, 2026, 4:58 AM UTC

gravypod wrote: post #73

mlindner wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forcing all costs on to new entrants in a market is generally a bad thing for the market and causes it to not expand fast enough. Also they may just choose to not participate in the market at all. I.e they'll bring in a whole lot of natural gas generators, put them in the parking lot and call it good, which is not a good thing long term.

Forcing all costs into externalities is also not ideal. Right now, some state's systems, force residential consumers to pay for new infrastructure for new demand while only minimal costs are paid by the new customer.