I don't have a problem with data centers and would welcome one nearby if it was a good deal for the area. But I'd want binding contractual agreements about environmental guarantees and requirements for building out new renewable energy generating capacity of 100% or even 150% of what the data center itself needs (and not just outbidding buyers of existing grid capacity). Instead we are handing out regulation waivers and tax incentives and telling locals they don't matter.

▲

davkan an hour ago | parent | next [-]

When would it ever be a good deal for the area?

▲

helterskelter 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Problem is that there's always some poorer community, or one with more corrupt government officials, willing to allow a buildout for next to nothing. And when they plug into the grid the next county or state over you're electric rates are going up anyway.

▲

sandcat_ 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Eh, this is a bit fatalist. Every bit of pushback is a tax. If a company applies to build in X location but is threatening to move to Y location where it's cheaper, or they can get away with something, there's obviously a reason they'd prefer X. They wouldn't be arguing otherwise. So if they are "forced" to move to Y, that's a tax.

See also: working at unethical tech firms, fears over the rich leaving NYC, etc.

	▲	helterskelter 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Depends on what X is worth to them and how badly Y may want that data center. X may have better infrastructure, but Y is offering to build theirs out and waive taxes for ten years, so X has less room to negotiate.

▲

mindslight 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The other problem is the rule of law is breaking down, so those contractual promises aren't really binding - rather the federal regime can always override any such restrictions with tales about energy policy or needing to compete with China (even as they squander our advantages on both). When you're one bribe away from being on the end of a vice signalling two minute hate, it's best to not give them a foothold in the first place.

▲

saulpw 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Okay, and? Just because they'll find some other place to put it with worse terms, doesn't mean you should let them have it in their preferred location with bad terms.

	▲	helterskelter 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I don't disagree with you. I'm just pointing out that you can make all sorts of demands but you aren't in a very good position to negotiate, and you'll probably still have to pay higher rates even if you stonewall them. Basically, "I drink your milkshake." A lot of local govts would look at this and say "we might as well get some jobs out of this" and approve. It's a good example of why we need some form of regulation to keep corrupt or incompetent local politicians from selling a community and potentially their neighbors down the river.

▲

darig 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]