https://www.nrdc.org/bio/jc-kibbey/utility-accountability-10... To be clear this only about some utility companies.

Thank you for sharing this. I get that the company making the capital investment wants to get a return of 10% from their investment. The part I don’t understand is, why aren’t the return on investment being covered by the increased usage from the data centers (while the rate per usage stays flat)?

If the increase in usage (with rates staying flat) is insufficient to cover for the return on investment, then who is making the decision to take the risk for making these capital investment? The risk taker can definitely ‘pay’ for an over confidence in the market.

If it is because the increased usage of the grid as a whole reaches a step function requiring more investment, the system can have a gradually increasing usage price rate.

I am trying to find out if someone in the system is trying to eat up the benefits and publicly say “it’s because of AI” or maybe I am not understanding the situation well.

	▲	turlockmike 8 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's because it's a weird mix of subsidies, price controls, regulations and bureaucracy that has completely distorted the market incentives.
	▲	brianwawok 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Two things I’d think 1) the first MW is cheaper to generate than the 100th. Newer plants. Cheaper fuels. More efficient. You run your good stuff always, for peak it’s on demand. 2) the cost of the old plants are already paid for, if adding a new data center requires a new plant; may add a big cost with a 50 year payback.