alt Hacker NewsUS tech firms pledge at White House to bear costs of energy for datacenters
Comments
which means nothing
because no one believes there are legal consequences if they don't
and there are a lot of ways to doge it even if there where a reliable government in place
like especially if they do what they have been doing recently (run their own generator, build their own power planes) a lot of this cost is implicit and as such very dogeable. E.g. higher cost for gas power planes for other due to major increase of demand, higher medical cost due to more air pollution, higher fuel prices, etc. etc. (not even speaking about anything climate change).
We are creating the final boss of tragedy of the commons.
I used to think we were progressing up an exciting tech tree. That seems naive now.
Water, land, energy, the soundscape, intellectual property that incentivizes the dissemination of good ideas, digital networks of information and self-expression, perhaps even the economic value of expertise itself are all being sacrificed in the now for promises of utopia in the future.
Precious eggs to give to those promising a utopian omelet, eventually.
> The agreement is meant to help mitigate concerns that big tech’s datacenters are driving up US electricity costs for homes and small businesses
Exactly opposite will happen. Reason is, when Big Tech is paying huge amounts of money to contractors to build those power generation facilities and service companies to service it, they will abandon servicing other facilities (remember how Micron dropped consumer RAMs last year because of enterprise demand) or require higher pay from everyone else
You can read the actual pledge at [0]. The executive order regarding it is at [1].
There's some speculation in the comments about what is or isn't in the pledge. I recommend reading it yourself.
[0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2026/03/ratepayer-protec...
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/03/rate...
This is USA so we all know that those techs companies won't pay a cent back at the end, but the population will.
Does it include externalities (co2 emissions)?
Increasing natural gas generation is of course disastrous policy with a major death toll from the climate disaster, there needs to be a rampdown of fossils use and production.
I too pledge to bear costs of energy I use.
I was unaware it was optional.
We should be focusing on how to build large turbines and transformers more quickly. A lot of transmission projects are blocked on equipment. There are warehouses full of photovoltaics that we cant use because of other industrial bottlenecks. We can build an entire PV plant before we can obtain a single custom transformer for a substation.
Most of these Data centers will be powered by Natural Gas, which flows from production through interstate pipelines, which already are fully subscribed meaning there isn’t any space left. As these data centers come online they will suck supply from these interstate pipelines, drastically increasing prices for all other forms of Natural gas usage (including residential power generation). This has a direct impact on prices for the end user and there is nothing that can be done in time to facilitate this from not occurring.
Building pipelines is a long and arduous process and one that will not be done in time to reasonably accommodate the increase in natural gas demand presented by these data centers.
None of what they're pledging is much of a change from how they've already been operating:
- They already invest in new power plants and connection infrastructure when they bring in new datacenters - Electricity for datacenters is based on capacity rather than actual usage - They already have backup generators at most datacenters that they can run during outages. It wouldn't be much work to allow those to feed power back into the grid in extraordinary circumstances - They generally use local contractors to build them for practicality purposes anyway.
This is just some fancy PR and nothing else.
We're all gonna end up paying for this and everyone involved knows it.
Oh the "pledges" - tell me again how the Billionaire's Giving Pledge - the ultimate "pinky promise" of the 1% - is going?
Launched in 2010 by Bill Gates, Melinda French Gates, and Warren Buffett, it was sold as a historic shift in philanthropy. Fast forward to 2026, and the data suggests it’s been more of a "Wealth Preservation Society" than a massive wealth redistribution event.
This will be just as trustworthy. We need laws - not merely rhetoric pledges !
Mark Zuckerberg, also at the White House in 2025, as caught by a hot mic: "Sorry, I wasn't ready... I wasn't sure what number you wanted to go with."
The pledge is meaningless political theater meant to placate voters in the mid-terms.
That still doesn't necessarily mean that prices won't be impacted indirectly. Let's say Amazon (or any other AI behemoth) builds a mini-nuclear plant to feed the electricity of their data center (as has been touted). Let's say every one follows suit. That implies an increase in the demand of uranium, which means an increase in price, which means an increase in the costs of the other nuclear plants, which is translated to higher electricity costs.
One could say "use renewables", but even that has externalities: that means an increase in demand for solar panels, or wind turbines, or the labour to maintain them, which again leads to an increase in prices.
Does a “pledge” have more or less weight than a pinky promise?
We already charge different rates for residential vs industrial water usage. Why not do the same here and simply charge them more? The state could also impose a direct data center surcharge on their usage.
You can buy solar panels and mitigate your future costs today. Start with plug-in solar if you're curious.
"The invisible hand" of free markets has become truly invisible...
Non-binding and voluntary = a bunch of lip service
Oooh, pledges; just what corporations excel at.
I'm sure we'll be hearing all about how much this benefits households in the coming months and years.
Microsoft is already doing it with nuclear. So is xAI/X/Tesla, the cleanest and most carbon friendly company on the planet.
I don't care about pledges. Pledges mean nothing.
I've seen Musk note in an interview that at year-end the bottleneck will not be CPU/RAM etc, but electricity. And new powerplants are backlogged for years.
That's why he wants to go into space (10x solar potential because you don't have a day/night cycle, no clouds, no dust/rain, no temperature loss, no orientation issues, and no atmosphere reducing solar).
To me it seems ridiculous, for one because sending 150kg to space costs about $500k, and this is about the weight of a solar installation that costs $800 to install and generates about $1000 worth of electricity across 20 years at utility wholesale prices.
But suppose it was cheaper and viable, and earth-electricity was indeed capped, you could argue (if you believe the hype) that developing AI is an existential arms-race objective for US/China.
But from what I've understood that's just not the case at all. Something like 170+ coal plants are scheduled to be decommissioned, and the average coal and gas plant runs at 40-50% of capacity, because wind/solar is eating their lunch (cheaper marginal $ per kWh). i.e. there is so little demand that these plants keep using less capacity and shutting down superfluous plants.
You'd think if experts believed electricity was going to be a bottleneck, that venture capital / AI companies, or even traditional capital, would be buying up plants or signing guaranteed-usage contracts. But it doesn't seem to be the case.
Cool. So they’ll build and operate gas turbines (or probably contract operations to do so) and then drive demand on the natgas, as well as over burden the gas delivery networks.
The same way Nvidia "pledged" $100B to OpenAI?
As long as they promised. Their word is golden
I will take this as seriously as any other promise issued at the White House in this regime.
Even if the pledges are in good faith, people are being naive about how utilities work.
The general goal for utilities has been to pursue the next “thing” and work toward some sort of regulation to lock in demand, which can be used as a lever to seek price increases and consolidate.
If there’s margin to be had, the utilities will find a way, and prices will go up either way.
Some towns in my state are already complaining about the noise from turbines supplying on-site power to a data center that's been built here. They're keeping people up at night. I'm broadly supportive of a "techie go home" movement.
>"The pledge includes a commitment"
Pledge my ass. It is either law mandating those massive datacenters absorb the cost with heavy penalties for non compliance or it is just BS talk (what it seems to be at the moment)
Like Musk just set up his own turbines regardless of what laws say
I can see how big tech is enthusiastic about freestyling this. Eh sorry I mean bear the cost
This is really a state law issue and there's really no solution for spiralling energy costs other than nationalizing utilities or otherwise making them into state or municipal entities, much like municipal broadband.
Take the case of Duke Energy in North Carolina, which illegally raised rates too much. Utilities prices are supposedly regulated but utilities work around this by simply moving costs to things they can charge whatever for (eg transmission costs vs energy costs).
The NC Court of Appeals ruled that Duke Energy's actions were illegal BUT there would be no refunds for customers [1], in part because lawmakers passed a law to allow them to do this retroactively [2]. Also, if Duke Energy had to repay customers they can simply raise prices to recoup those costs even though the money was improperly charged in the first place.
So consumers will keep paying for the infrastructure to connect up these data centers and will keep subsidizing the ongoing energy costs.
[1]: https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/local/no-refunds-for-duke-...
[2]: https://sustaincharlotte.org/press-release-nc-lawmakers-over...
Much like the price of RAM, SSD, and GPU. The ballooning data-center energy consumption costs have already broken the middle class economic-loop Westinghouse electric drove in the 1950s. Some are seeing their utility bills double.
People are not voluntarily going to build things that make less profit.
It is a suckers bet assuming the unscrupulous will grow a conscience. =3
Bare cost? They used energy for free before?
1y from here they will be talking how nuclear facilities are necessary
Can I pledge to pay taxes?
Like trickle down economics? Fool me once ...
Wait a minute, so who else was paying the bills?
I find the whole thing a little odd. They’re basically pledging to pay their electricity bills. So what? So does every business.
Saying they’re going to pay for generation and transmission adds little. That’s already baked into the charges! It’s like saying they’re going to finally pay for the farmers to grow the produce and the drivers to get the produce to market when they buy apples--as though spontaneous generation and teleportation was ever an option.
Stealing from the people; enriching myself
I don't believe them. I don't trust corporations. At all. I look back at all the broken promises of corporations like AT&T, all while doing massive stock buy backs, and I simply don't want to hear their bullshit anymore.
Please Democrats don't fuck up the midterms.[1] Take the house and start legislating in favor of the humans. [2]
[1] Narrator: they will [2] Narrator: they won't
Everything that the white house says atm, they do the opposite.
Terrific if it happens. I may even ignore the AI (valuation) bubble for the duration.
David Roberts (https://volts.wtf) has repeatedly noted that AI companies need the power, need it now, and have the capital to get it. So he (and others) advocate that Big Tech fund the grid improvements and new power generation.
Point #1 Virtual Power Plants
Roberts advocates adopting virtual power plants (VPPs). Think grid of grids, like the internet is a network of networks. Think peer-to-peer energy sharing. VPPs unlock dynamic load shifting, two-way energy sharing (think of all those roof top solar panels and powerwalls), and therefore -- most importantly -- reduces peak demand on a grid which will allow greater utilitization.
IIRC: our grids currently operate at 30% capacity (to accommodate rare peak demand events). Grid enhancement techs plus VPPs can boost that to 80% or higher. Reducing the urgency for building more transmission and distribution infra. (In the short term; we still need to greatly embiggen our grid(s).)
It'd be kinda amazing if the urgency to build more data centers mooted the incumbent's (utilities, regulators) opposition to improving our grid(s), thereby benefiting everyone everywhere.
Tangent: there's a backlog of grid enhancing technologies available, just waiting for funding and incentives to line up.
Tangent: VPPs also enable new financial products, which will further accelerate electrification (of All The Things).
Point #2 Solar + Battery
Solar + battery is the fastest, cheapest way to get new power generation. More so every year.
Yes, we still need to massively invest in All The Things to reach Net Zero and beyond. Wind, geothermal, nuclear (fission and fusion), hydro, every flavor of storage, de-carbonize industry and agriculture, conservation, rewilding, and everything else.
But at this moment in time, today, we need gigawatts of new generation and the grid that can support it. That means solar + battery.
Aside, IIRC, data centers are projected to demand just 5% our electricity supply. So society will be the net beneficiaries (on this axis).
Were Big Tech to fund the generation and grid that we need, maybe society will indulge some of Big Tech's less egregious offenses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence
Important Point: the rising costs of transmission, distribution, and fuel costs account for electricity's higher prices. New renewable power generation is now the cheapest option, and getting cheaper. The challenge is delivering that cheap electricity to customers.
The only people who believes corpo jackoffery these days are either boomers or people investing their remaining money in big line go up
I've read so many of these pledges before.... tl'dr: no, they won't
Do they pledge the costs of noise pollution and damage to water sources? Let’s be honest - these pledges are theater that reflects an agreement between tech oligarchs and the Trump administration. The pay the bribes via donations or whatever, and get back this deceptive theater show.
The training data commons is to AI what oil reserves are to petroleum economies: a collectively generated resource of immense commercial value. Every book written, every forum post answered, every photo shared, every line of code contributed... billions of people built the knowledge base that makes these models work. Without that collective human output, AI is nothing.
Alaska and Norway understood something critical when oil was discovered: if you don't assert collective ownership of the resource before private companies capture all the value, you never will. Alaska amended its constitution. Norway built the largest sovereign wealth fund on earth. Both were acts of people saying "this belongs to us, and we deserve a return on its extraction."
We are in exactly that window right now with AI. The resource is being extracted at an incredible pace and almost all the value is flowing to a handful of companies. The longer people wait to assert sovereign ownership over the collective intelligence that makes AI possible, the harder it becomes.
If you think this is crazy, ask yourself what’s actually crazier: demanding a share of the value built on your collective labor, or watching trillions of dollars get extracted from it and saying nothing.
the idea of Alaskans getting a check just for existing sounded crazy too, right up until it didn’t.