Senators want datacenters to come clean on power consumption

US senators are pushing to require datacenters and other large energy customers to report consumption, arguing the data is essential to hold them accountable to local communities. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Josh Hawley have written [PDF] to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) – the official energy statistics agency …

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't they have smart meters?

That would make it simple.

Just copy the usage to one of the "intelligence" services. (Or let them do it themselves, I'm sure they can.)

[cyberdemon]

Re: Don't they have smart meters?

Actually no - a lot of these installations are not even hooked up to the grid yet and are running on diesel/gas in the meantime, or they do have a grid connection but run their generators anyway whenever it's cheaper to do so. So-called "behind-the-meter" energy usage is hard to measure

[MachDiamond]

Re: Don't they have smart meters?

"So-called "behind-the-meter" energy usage is hard to measure"

It could be made easier if ordinances were passed to collect that information for tax purposes. It could also be required to asses pollution estimates if those laws are more handy.

It's said that xAI is using gas generators they've left on trailers so they can make the claim that they are temporary and exempt from certain reporting/usage requirements. Of course, they aren't temp "emergency" generators as they feed into what looks like more permanently fixed infrastructure.

[doublelayer]

Re: Don't they have smart meters?

It's an easy number for the DC operators to measure, but the suggestion being countered was collecting some of it from the power providers instead or while waiting, which is where total consumption becomes impossible to measure and rough consumption becomes harder.

I'm not sure the number helps a lot because, if it grows for some reason, the report will come after the additional load starts increasing prices. It would make guessing where that might happen more reliable, but unless there's a plan to do something with that guess, that's not of much help. Currently, not only is the pledge voluntary and unenforced, but it also only covers theoretical use and spending which will get changed whenever profitable.

[Roland6]

Re: Don't they have smart meters?

> So-called "behind-the-meter" energy usage is hard to measure

Depends on how the circuit is wired: The typical solar-battery system is a “behind-the-meter” system, yet through full data is available…

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? Are they trying to make $big_corp pay their fair share instead of passing the cost to the suckers? That's so unconstitutional or something.

Oh, I get it, those senators are comming to the end of their term and are trying for the upper hand in negociating deals with those $big_corps.

[indianaUSA]

Yikes, Hikes have already happened!

Here in Northwest Indiana we have already been hit with a big price hike of 25%.

Just search 'NIPSCO price hikes'.

And gotta love NIPSCO's comment, "The newly approved rates will be phased in over multiple steps beginning in July through the beginning of 2026 to spread out the changes to customers".

Ya, like that way we rate payers might not notice!?!

And yes, we have a lot of new data centers either in operation or in the planning/building stages.

[Dimmer]

Maybe they should ask the DOE.

I got this the other day.....

Good morning xxxxx,

I am contacting you from the U.S. Energy Administration (EIA), a part of the U.S. Department of Energy, to invite you to participate in a pilot survey about energy use in data centers.

This effort is vital for establishing a clearer understanding of a sector with rapidly evolving energy demands. Your feedback will also help us to make sure we ask the right questions about data centers like yours in future surveys.

Would you please participate in this voluntary 15-minute survey about the data center at , , or another data center facility you are more familiar with?

Please click the link below to access the survey. You can use a computer, tablet, or smartphone, whichever is more convenient.

Follow this link to the Washington Survey:

Take the survey

Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:

Your responses will be kept completely confidential.

If you have any questions or need additional information about this research project, contact me at 202-586-5661, or by email at [e-mail]. For more information about EIA, please visit our website.

Thank you,

John Richards

----

Why would a datacenter not want anyone to know how much power they are using? Simple, it would expose the scam some of them are doing. If I had a mega datacenter and it is half empty, I would not want the equity funds or potential buyers finding out.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Maybe they should ask the DOE.

"I am contacting you from the U.S. Energy Administration (EIA), a part of the U.S. Department of Energy, to invite you to participate in a pilot survey about energy use in data centers."

No, yeah, NO!

Rule 37: never volunteer any data to the government that they might use against you.

[old-iron]

Re: Maybe they should ask the DOE.

Thing is, there are different types of "datacenter full"

If its half empty of kit, the power or cooling might be maxed = its full

But if it looks full of racks you may have spent $m's on unecessary facilities kit & space as its consuming 30% of the designed loads

BOTH are an embarrassment

[Alien Doctor 1.1]

slightly off-topic...

Since Thatcher privatised our national water industry last century we have seen several repercussions:

- investment in infrastructure has plummeted,

- billions of pounds of customer money has been siphoned off to investors and manglement bonuses,

- raw sewage leaks and intentional discharges have poisoned our shorelines and inland waterways,

- because of those leaks hundreds, if not thousands have suffered serious illnesses and people have died including children,

- the water companies are demanding huge increases in charges they can levy to pay for new infrastructure, and

- there are multiple occasions where water mains have collapsed leading to flooding and tens of thousands of customers losing water supply.

All of the problems can be traced back to Thatcher and her privatisation policies; and don't get me started on what she did to the UK coal industry and the miners.

Bitch, along with the whole tory party.

[MachDiamond]

Re: slightly off-topic...

"Since Thatcher privatised our national water industry last century we have seen several repercussions:"

Given how long it can take government to get out of their own way and get something done, perhaps a more private aspect to utilities is warranted. Not that they should be treated like any other business, but have to work with certain restrictions when it comes to executive salaries, outside investments, advertising and reinvestment into their infrastructure. Since they are usually a monopoly in their markets for a good reason, there should be corresponding differences in how they are allowed to operate.

I don't see why, for instance, they should be allowed to buy naming rights to a sports stadium. The advertising value is zero since people don't get the choice of one water supplier or another (other than choosing a billing service in some cases). There's one pipe coming to their home and one leaving.

Executives shouldn't be looking to maximize value to the shareholder (read: the executives) but paid a suitable compensation to provide maximum value to the customer/community. Taking money out of the pot to invest in outside companies seems to me to be beyond the Pale. The money should be used to upgrade systems, which always seems needs doing, and IF there is any left over, saved for the future.

[QET]

Re: slightly off-topic...

Critical infrastructure and services should never be left in charge of purely for-profit organizations, and also regularly having the leadership scrutinized/inspected to avoid them halfassing their job or otherwise subpar performance scenarios, versus their salary and their actual responsibilities.

Otherwise the profits gets privatized, while the expenses gets socialized.

[doublelayer]

Re: slightly off-topic...

Essentially, you seem to be describing a nonprofit organization setup, possibly with even more restrictions. That could work, but at that point, why do you expect it to be much different than a government doing it? Either way, there are people employed at a fixed salary told to make this thing work. It can also still go wrong in a combination of the ways government-run and privatized systems go wrong. The leaders can't increase their pay or sell something off and pocket the proceeds, but they can still be treated to nice things from potential suppliers or find reasons that something they want is valid expenses. The only benefit I can see in this structure so far is that, if the water service is profitable, the profit remains earmarked for the water system and can't be easily taken for other purposes.

[Roland6]

Re: slightly off-topic...

The CIC model is interesting, it is worth comparing Welsh Water with the other water companies…

Having previously set up a CIC to hold and run community assets separate to the local authority - this meant profits from our community centre remained in the village and when the council went bust a few years back they couldn’t sell off our community centre and playing fields for development, there are attractions compared to government ownership. Downside, we are fully responsible for maintenance.

Another attraction, is that a CIC can raise money from banks ie. Commercial loans, rather than be limited to asking the Treasury for more money, which then gets included I government spending and taxation figures, resulting in the Tory/Reform nutters complaining about taxes being too high etc.

From my experience, I would agree what is needed is the CIC model, updated with some further restrictions for the utility sector.

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: slightly off-topic...

don't get me started on what she did to the UK coal industry and the miners

Coal was already dying, but the real damage to the miners was done by Scargill. He hated Thatcher so much that he used the miners as his private army to try and overthorow an elected government, and didn't care what happened to his cannon fodder. No government can let that happen. There's a reason that the breakaway miners' union called itself the Democratic Union of Mineworkers, and don't forget that Thatcher won a second landslide in the following election.

[Roland6]

Re: slightly off-topic...

>” but the real damage to the miners was done by Scargill.”

Whilst Scargill played a part, it was Thatcher who shut the pits down in a way that means any remaining coal is effectively beyond reach.

[Always Right Mostly]

Attention all pigs: prepare to fly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they should ask one of the AI clusters in these datacentres to answer.

Maybe the don't want to know the answer as that'll stifle AI places being stood up in local communities and reduce any green/net zero pledges?

[Anonymous Coward]

These are the same senators who promoted electric vehicles without ever fully addressing the impact on electrical consumption.

To me, it’s another example of how political messaging often ignores practical consequences, and the inconsistency feels like hypocrisy in action.