Four US governors from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia have proposed a plan that would allow data centers to generate their own power and sell it back to the grid, in exchange for faster approval processes.
Under the proposal, data centers can build their own energy generators, which would be added to the PJM's regional grid. The generators would need to produce at least as much power as they consume, with the excess being fed into the grid. This plan aims to bolster the reliability of the grid and generate revenue for PJM.
The proposal is a voluntary and heavily incentivized path for the data center industry, according to Pamela Quinlan, a principal at GQS New Energy Strategies. The idea has generated interest among governors who are eager for data center expansion in their states, despite being critical of PJM's operations.
Data centers require constant power, and even brief outages can result in significant revenue losses. The fast-track proposal would allow data centers to invest in lucrative projects with minimal regulatory hurdles.
The plan relies on the states to expedite permitting and siting for the data operations. Each state can issue directives to expedite projects that involve building energy lines or substations, without requiring them to be located directly at the data center site. The generators would need to meet the same reliability standards as PJM's existing power sources.
The proposal includes a measure to combat rising bills for ratepayers by extending or maintaining the current capacity charge. This would shield customers from price spikes as data centers come online, according to Abraham Silverman, an energy researcher at Johns Hopkins University's Ralph O'Connor Sustainable Energy Institute.
However, experts have raised concerns about the plan, including how states will review and decide to fast-track projects, and whether it would short-circuit local permitting processes. Jacob Finkel, an aide to Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, argued that the plan is a step in the right direction, but acknowledged that more details are needed.
The proposal faces scrutiny from experts who argue that it prioritizes data centers' interests over grid reliability and customer concerns. Monitoring Analytics' president Joseph Bowring stated that data centers should be the last to lose power when the grid is stressed, as their connection would disrupt existing customers.
The plan is part of PJM's efforts to add suppliers to the grid through a rule change called the Critical Issue Fast Path. The federal agency that oversees grid regulations, FERC, will decide whether the change is lawful and in the public interest.
Under the proposal, data centers can build their own energy generators, which would be added to the PJM's regional grid. The generators would need to produce at least as much power as they consume, with the excess being fed into the grid. This plan aims to bolster the reliability of the grid and generate revenue for PJM.
The proposal is a voluntary and heavily incentivized path for the data center industry, according to Pamela Quinlan, a principal at GQS New Energy Strategies. The idea has generated interest among governors who are eager for data center expansion in their states, despite being critical of PJM's operations.
Data centers require constant power, and even brief outages can result in significant revenue losses. The fast-track proposal would allow data centers to invest in lucrative projects with minimal regulatory hurdles.
The plan relies on the states to expedite permitting and siting for the data operations. Each state can issue directives to expedite projects that involve building energy lines or substations, without requiring them to be located directly at the data center site. The generators would need to meet the same reliability standards as PJM's existing power sources.
The proposal includes a measure to combat rising bills for ratepayers by extending or maintaining the current capacity charge. This would shield customers from price spikes as data centers come online, according to Abraham Silverman, an energy researcher at Johns Hopkins University's Ralph O'Connor Sustainable Energy Institute.
However, experts have raised concerns about the plan, including how states will review and decide to fast-track projects, and whether it would short-circuit local permitting processes. Jacob Finkel, an aide to Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, argued that the plan is a step in the right direction, but acknowledged that more details are needed.
The proposal faces scrutiny from experts who argue that it prioritizes data centers' interests over grid reliability and customer concerns. Monitoring Analytics' president Joseph Bowring stated that data centers should be the last to lose power when the grid is stressed, as their connection would disrupt existing customers.
The plan is part of PJM's efforts to add suppliers to the grid through a rule change called the Critical Issue Fast Path. The federal agency that oversees grid regulations, FERC, will decide whether the change is lawful and in the public interest.
. Data centers need power 24/7, which means they can't be easily shut down or replaced if something goes wrong on the grid 
. And if they're generating their own power and feeding it back into the grid, that just means there's more energy at stake when the grid is under stress 
️.
. We can't have them being the last ones to lose power during a grid crisis 
. And what about the environmental impact? Do we really want more energy sources generating more emissions? 
. We need more details and a thorough analysis of how this plan will affect the grid, customers, and the environment 
.
... like, I get it, they need power all the time, but do we really want them generating their own and selling it back? It's a bit weird to me... think about it, what if one of these data centers gets hacked or something and starts causing problems on the grid? We don't even know how reliable their generators are yet... I'm all for innovation, but not at the expense of our safety and infrastructure 
. I mean, what's really driving this proposal? Is it just about generating more revenue for PJM, or are there genuine concerns about grid reliability? 
.
It's easy to say "we want faster approval processes" but what does that even mean in practice? 
. That just sounds like a fancy way of saying "we're going to keep rates artificially high for customers, while data centers get a sweet deal" 
. And think about it, with all those servers humming away, they gotta keep 'em running 24/7, so this fast-track plan is actually a pretty smart move for both the data centers and PJM. Plus, it's got that sweet sauce of incentivizing innovation - who wouldn't wanna invest in some green energy projects? 
But, I do worry about how this is gonna affect our grid reliability... like, what happens when there's a power outage in a major city? Do we really want data centers being the last to lose power? 
Still, it's an interesting development, and I'm curious to see how FERC decides on this Critical Issue Fast Path thingy. Guess only time (and some more essays) will tell! 
.
... i mean, we've seen enough examples of data centers being built in remote areas with little consideration for the surrounding ecosystem.
... i'm all for innovation, but we need to make sure that this plan doesn't come at the expense of our grid's overall health 
. And what's the deal with the capacity charge measure? Is that just a fancy way of saying 'we'll try not to raise your bills too much' 
. I mean, those brief outages can really hurt businesses, so some incentive might be a good thing. But what if we're gonna overload the grid with too many new energy sources? 
.
. We just gotta make sure we're not rushing into anything without thinking about the long-term consequences.
. It's all about finding that balance between progress and responsibility 
need more info before i'm convinced this is a good idea
.
. We need to make sure that our energy infrastructure is secure and resilient, not some gamble where companies get to reap the benefits while we suffer the consequences 
.
I'm so down for this plan! As someone who's been around the block a few times when it comes to data centers 
.
