aripeskoe.bsky.social
Director of the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard Law.
350 posts
3,497 followers
439 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Microsoft said it would spend $80B in 2025 on data centers. Scaling back a bit still means they're spending tens of billions. www.cnbc.com/2025/01/03/m...
comment in response to
post
Just guessing here but I think if the airlines called that out people would freak and wouldn't want to fly. So it's bad for business.
comment in response to
post
Lots of new assets to be securitized! "Bonds backed by leases on data centers and fiber-optic networks—which power companies’ AI operations—hit $4 billion in the first two months of this year, equivalent to one-third of total issuance in 2024, according to Finsight." www.wsj.com/finance/inve...
comment in response to
post
know your audience
comment in response to
post
Just got a new data point and $2,000/kW was last year. 20027-2029 delivery is $2,400/kW. That doesn’t include the cost of upgrading pipeline infrastructure. All of this will be contracted at $95/MWh, merchant IPPs won’t touch gas at these prices
comment in response to
post
Ohio St?
comment in response to
post
FERC has thus far played a small role. Most of the action is at the state level.
Should utility commissioners be sanctioning subsidies based on supposed national security concerns? If AI will be a global privately owned weapon, shouldn't Congress subsidize it and not utility ratepayers?
comment in response to
post
Is there really a bipartisan consensus on AI and data centers? If so, Congress could pass a law about it, right?
We're about to release a report that argues the public is paying for data center energy costs through utility rates. It's a massive transfer of wealth benefitting utilities and Big Tech
comment in response to
post
"Data centers, artificial intelligence, and other information-related technologies are transforming the world. To that end, there has emerged a clear, bipartisan consensus that these are national interest resources with profound implications for both our national security and economic growth."
comment in response to
post
Happy to provide recommendations!
comment in response to
post
I meant that if you interview another in 11 months or so, then you'll have three consecutive winters of New England PUC Chair guests. And then you'll have a tradition that you must (by law) uphold forever.
comment in response to
post
Looking forward to your winter 2026 interview of another New England PUC Chair. Three times will make it a tradition.
www.volts.wtf/p/a-connecti...
comment in response to
post
FERC is independent "according to the terms of the DOE Organization Act." FERC will "continue to follow the statutes."
comment in response to
post
At FERC, that rule about ex parte does not apply to rulemaking proceedings (i.e., Order No 1920).
comment in response to
post
He says it explicitly -- "ex parte communications are illegal."
comment in response to
post
Mentions his experience in VA, where commissioners are under a strict judicial code of conduct. Suggests he wouldn't tolerate efforts to contact him about pending proceedings.
comment in response to
post
He says we're not going to weigh in on Humphrey's Executor and suggests that FERC wouldn't have an opportunity to do so.
But he also notes that there's a pending case in federal court that argues FERC's structure is unconstitutional. That case directly raises Humphreys. FERC's brief is due soon.
comment in response to
post
That said, he says he will seek clarification from OMB on the legal coordination piece of the EO.
If you're only watching the monthly meeting and not the post-meeting press conference -- www.ferc.gov/media/press-...
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
Also, this seems like a decent summary. But it would be nice if it acknowledged that the firm is currently suing FERC claiming that its structure violates the Constitution. www.jenner.com/en/news-insi...
comment in response to
post
I think the key questions are about how all of the players -- FERC, OMB, DOJ -- will attempt to implement it.
comment in response to
post
"It is the Commissioners themselves who must attempt to reconcile the contradictions of the DOE Act and decide in what measure the Commission will follow the leadership of the Department or assert its independent authority."
www.eba-net.org/wp-content/u...
comment in response to
post
I look forward to Chair Christie enlightening us all tomorrow morning!
comment in response to
post
But I wonder what FERC staff will do. It seems like people across the federal government are having to choose whether to resign or disobey and potentially get fired/reassigned/etc. If DOJ and OMB really want to enforce this, they won't care about citations to the DOE Org Act.
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
This is the whole problem right here. A lot of people are saying --- "There's absolutely no way a bunch of 20 year old CS majors, no matter how smart of well intentioned, can judge the minimum human requirement for [ ]."