all 20 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 70 points 4 months ago

This is the way.

  • source
  • [–] 87 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    I'm confused why this isn't being done everywhere.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    But what if they pass on the expense to their users?

    Then it'd be an even bigger win.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago*

    I mean, they kinda of have to. I don't know that any data centers are running at a profit yet and that's even after they've switched to usage pricing; with the increased burn rate there's no way they can't raises price sooner rather than later.

    ETA: but make no mistake, they will do anything they can to just make multiple smaller data centers that stay under the 20MW bend point. Maybe the economics will make sense, maybe it won't. Hopefully the 20MW and 30% figures involved some math by a bean counter to conclude the economics won't make sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago

    I mean theres only so much money can do. You cant have infinite growth on a finite planet. Water doesnt grow on money.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 14 points 4 months ago
    [–] 14 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Proud of my state, mostly.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago
    [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    What had Steyer said his ideas for California were? He kept saying he was going to take on the power companies but can't recall policy papers.

  • source
  • [+] -10 points 4 months ago* (3 children)

    Lol, 1.3% is meaningless

    So what did they do with the rest of the money?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    There are only so many data centers, so by hiking their rates 30% then they were able to reduce the already paid rate of probably 1.5M households by 1.3%. They didnt increase everyones rates 30% and then reduce it to 28.7% for the residential customer.

    1.3% is pretty significant when youre talking about over a million accounts. Data centers use a ton of energy but thats a handful of accounts by comparison (or literally)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -5 points 4 months ago

    This has nothing to do with "fair share" you people are deranged. This is simple cost and profit calculation

  • source
  • 18 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 149 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    I have to say this is really shitty reporting by Tom's and OPB. Sure its a big rate increase, but they left out the part where datacenters are still paying 30% to 50% less than residential customers per kWh.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    I was thinking that this sounds good at face value, but it could easily just be a throwaway publicity stunt.

    Let's just make up a scenario, purely for illustrative purposes. Say our baseline is in 2022, customers paid ~100 a month in electricity. Then over the years, data centres came along, they struck deals, and individual consumers electricity bills went up to 200, which we are at today.

    Then, NicePowerCompanyLLC decides to hike the prices for the datacentres by 30%, and reduce the prices by 1.3% for the residentials. That's still 98.7% higher than the baseline before the datacentres. That's to say, they data centres are still having their costs subsidized by regular people.

    Ergo, if the prices already got hiked because of the datacentres, this tiny concession is a piss in the ocean. It's just a publicity stunt to make themselves look better while people are still buckling under the exploitation of having to carry billion dollar industries on their backs, with no real benefit to themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 88 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Good, that's the way it should be.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 52 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Data Center: "Time to fire up the jet turbines"

    This is a great first step. Next thing they need is environmental regulation with teeth.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 68 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    This is TERRIBLE! If we FORCE Billionaires to PAY their Bills they Might LEAVE and DROP my Bills in the Process!

    -Republican Voters LITERALLY!

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 4 months ago

    POWER TO THE PEOPLE

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    I wonder how many data centres have contracts for fixed or predictable pricing agreements

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago

    There are dozens that have their new energy infrastructure costs and even their power usage shared among all the residents of that utility district. They're hard to find out about because the contracts are often secretive -- can't imagine why -- but this was going on for a while before people started to put up a stink about data centers.

    This is a good article from about a year ago, and Benn Jordan has also talked about it on his channel, among others.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 4 months ago

    I'm not even against data centers per se. I'm against the reckless unlimited building of dozens of these megastructures all at once with virtually no regulation or accountability. This is an excellent way to push the brakes and not screw the little guy in the process.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 4 months ago

    This is the way

  • source