America is debating data centers as though technological leadership and affordable electricity are competing goals. That framing misses the opportunity. Hyperscale campuses should enter the grid as integrated energy projects that add generation, storage, flexibility, and resilience, not merely as large loads.An April 2026 Pew Research Center **** ysis found more than 3,000 operating U.S. data centers and more than 1,500 in development, with 67% of planned facilities in rural communities. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory projects data centers could consume 11.8% of U.S. electricity by 2030. Goldman Sachs projects demand could rise from 31 GW in 2025 to 66 GW in 2027.
COMMENTARY
Those figures demand a legal and regulatory model that rewards projects capable of solving the problems they create. Hyperscale facilities seeking expedited approval should bring enough new supply and flexibility to serve contracted demand, pay the infrastructure costs they cause, and provide enforceable grid support during emergencies.A 2025 executive order accelerated permitting for qualifying artificial intelligence (AI) data centers and supporting power infrastructure. The White House's 2026 Ratepayer Protection Pledge called on hyperscalers to bring new generation, pay grid costs, and protect existing customers.In October 2025, the Energy Secretary used Section 403 of the Department of Energy Organization Act to ask the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to consider reforms for loads generally exceeding 20 MW in Docket No. RM26-4-000. FERC declined to impose one national process, instead opening separate Federal Power Act Section 206 proceedings in June 2026 for all six regional transmission organizations (RTOs) and independent system operators (ISOs), Docket Nos. EL26-67-000 through EL26-72-000.The orders question whether existing tariffs are just and reasonable, and identify five reform areas: study procedures, cost-shifting protections, co-location and behind-the-meter generation, flexible transmission service, and generation serving nearby loads.
[evtx_block slug="ep-dpx-26-textblock"]
Texas has responded by requiring large-load customers to shoulder infrastructure costs and by developing curtailment and co-location rules under Senate Bill 6. New York has paused certain hyperscale permits while it develops ratepayer, grid, water, and community protections. Both approaches point toward the same durable result: a power-positive approval pathway that converts legitimate public concerns into measurable design and operating obligations.Other states are building tariffs around that principle. Wisconsin extended its very-large-customer tariff to a 15-year minimum, lowered eligibility to 100 MW, and strengthened cost-shift protections. Long commitments, minimum-demand payments, security requirements, and exit charges are now central project economics.That makes the interconnection agreement co-equal with the engineering, procurement, and construction cont
COMMENTARY
Those figures demand a legal and regulatory model that rewards projects capable of solving the problems they create. Hyperscale facilities seeking expedited approval should bring enough new supply and flexibility to serve contracted demand, pay the infrastructure costs they cause, and provide enforceable grid support during emergencies.A 2025 executive order accelerated permitting for qualifying artificial intelligence (AI) data centers and supporting power infrastructure. The White House's 2026 Ratepayer Protection Pledge called on hyperscalers to bring new generation, pay grid costs, and protect existing customers.In October 2025, the Energy Secretary used Section 403 of the Department of Energy Organization Act to ask the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to consider reforms for loads generally exceeding 20 MW in Docket No. RM26-4-000. FERC declined to impose one national process, instead opening separate Federal Power Act Section 206 proceedings in June 2026 for all six regional transmission organizations (RTOs) and independent system operators (ISOs), Docket Nos. EL26-67-000 through EL26-72-000.The orders question whether existing tariffs are just and reasonable, and identify five reform areas: study procedures, cost-shifting protections, co-location and behind-the-meter generation, flexible transmission service, and generation serving nearby loads.
[evtx_block slug="ep-dpx-26-textblock"]
Texas has responded by requiring large-load customers to shoulder infrastructure costs and by developing curtailment and co-location rules under Senate Bill 6. New York has paused certain hyperscale permits while it develops ratepayer, grid, water, and community protections. Both approaches point toward the same durable result: a power-positive approval pathway that converts legitimate public concerns into measurable design and operating obligations.Other states are building tariffs around that principle. Wisconsin extended its very-large-customer tariff to a 15-year minimum, lowered eligibility to 100 MW, and strengthened cost-shift protections. Long commitments, minimum-demand payments, security requirements, and exit charges are now central project economics.That makes the interconnection agreement co-equal with the engineering, procurement, and construction cont
2 months ago
