 |
|
|
|||||
The amount of electricity data centers use in the U.S. in the coming years is expected to be significant. But regular reports of proposals for new ones and cancellations of planned ones mean that its difficult to know exactly how many data centers will actually be built and how much electricity might be required to run them. As a researcher of energy policy who has studied the cost challenges associated with new utility infrastructure, I know that uncertainty comes with a cost. In the electricity sector, it is the challenge of state utility regulators to decide who pays what shares of the costs associated with generating and serving these types of operations, sometimes broadly called large load centers. States are exploring different approaches, each with strengths, weaknesses, and potential drawbacks. A new type of customer? For years, large electricity customers such as textile mills and refineries have used enough electricity to power a small city. Moreover, their construction timelines were more aligned with the development time of new electricity infrastructure. If a company wanted to build a new textile mill and the utility needed to build a new gas-fired power plant to serve it, the construction on both could start around the same time. Both could be ready in two and a half to three years, and the textile mill could start paying for the costs necessary to serve it. Modern data centers use a similar amount of electricity but can be built in nine to 12 months. To meet that projected demand, construction of a new gas-fired power plant, or a solar farm with battery storage, must begin a yearmaybe twobefore the data center breaks ground. During the time spent building the electrical supply, computing technology advances, including both the capabilities and the efficiency of the kinds of calculations artificial intelligence systems require. Both factors affect how much electricity a data center will use once it is built. Technological, logistical, and planning changes mean there is a lot of uncertainty about how much electricity a data center will ultimately use. So its very hard for a utility company to know how much generating capacity to start building. Keeping older coal plants running may be an expensive way to generate power. Ulysse Bellier/AFP via Getty Images Handling the risks of development This uncertainty costs money: A power plant could be built in advance, only to find out that some or all of its capacity isnt needed. Or no power plant is built, and a data center pops up, competing for a limited supply of electricity. Either way, someone needs to payfor the excess capacity or for the increased price of what power is available. There are three possible groups that might pay: the utilities that provide electricity, the data center customers, and the rest of the customers on the system. However, utility companies have largely ensured their risk is minimal. Under most state utility-regulation processes, state officials review spending proposals from utility companies to determine what expenses can be passed on to customers. That includes operating expenses such as salaries and fuel costs, as well as capital investments, such as new power plants and other equipment. Regulators typically examine whether proposed expenses are useful for providing service to customers and reasonable for the utility to expect to incur. Utilities have been very careful to provide their regulators with evidence about the costs and effects of proposed data centers to justify passing the costs of proposed investments in new power plants along to whomever the customers happen to be. Regulators, then, are left to equitably allocate the costs to the prospective data center customers and the rest of the ratepayers, including homes and businesses. In different states, this is playing out differently. Kentuckys approach to usefulness Kentucky is attempting to address the demand uncertainty by conditionally approving two new natural gas-fired generators in the state. However, the utility companiesLouisville Gas & Electric and Kentucky Utilitiesmust demonstrate that those plants will actually be needed and used. But its not clear how they could do that, especially considering the time frames involved. For instance, suppose the utility has a letter of agreement or even a contract with a new data center or other large customer. That might be sufficient proof for the regulator to approve charging customers for the costs of building a new power plant. But its not clear what would happen if the data center ends up not being built, or needing much less power than expected. If the utility cant get the money from the data center companybecause they bill customers based on actual usagethat leaves regular consumers on the ook. A data center in Columbus, Ohio, is just one of many being built or proposed around the country. Eli Hiller/For The Washington Post via Getty Images Ohios demand ratchet and credit guarantee In Ohio, the major power company AEP has a specific rate plan for data centers and other large electricity customers. One element, called a demand ratchet, is designed to mitigate month-to-month uncertainty in electricity consumption by data centers. The data centers monthly bill is based on the current months demand or 85% of the highest monthly demand from the previous 11 monthswhichever is higher. The benefit is that it protects against a data center using huge amounts of electricity one month and very little the next, which would otherwise yield a much lower bill. The ratchet helps ensure that the data center is paying a significant share of the cost of providing enough electricity, even if it doesnt use as much as was expected. This ratchet effectively locks in the data centers payments for 12 months, but regulators might expect a longer commitment from the center. For instance, Floridas utilities regulator has approved an agreement that would require a data center company to pay for 70% of the agreed-upon demand in their entire electricity contract, even if the company didnt use the power. Another aspect of Ohios approach addresses the risk of changing business plans or technology. AEP requires a credit guarantee, like a deposit, letter of credit or parent company guarantee of payment, equal to 50% of the customers expected minimum bill under the contract. While this theoretically reduces the risk borne by other customers, it also raises concerns. For example, a utility may not end up signing contracts directly with a large, well-known, wealthy technology company but with a subsidiary corporation with a more generic nameimagine something like Westside Data Center LLCcreated solely to build and operate one data center. If the data centers plans or technology changes, that subsidiary could declare bankruptcy, leaving the other customers with the remaining costs. Harnessing strength in flexibility A key advantage of these new types of customers is that they are extremely nimble in the way they use electricity. If data centers can make money based on their flexibility, as they have in Texas, then a portion of those profits can be returned to the other customers that shared the investment risk. A similar mechanism is being implemented in Missouri: If the utility makes extra money from large customers, then 65% of that revenue increase is returned to the other customers. Change is coming to the U.S. electricity system, but nobody is sure how much. The methods by which states are trying to allocate the cost of that uncertainty vary, but the critical element is understanding their respective strengths and weaknesses to craft a system that is fair for everyone. Theodore J. Kury is a director of energy studies at the University of Florida. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
China will impose tariffs of up to 19.8% on pork imports from the European Union, a drastic drop from preliminary tariffs of up to 62.4%, its Commerce Ministry said Tuesday. The ministry’s announcement followed an investigation the Chinese side launched into imports of pork from the trading bloc after the EU imposed provisional tariffs on China-made electric vehicles. Beijing also levied anti-dumping duties on European brandy, most notably cognac produced in France, though major brandy producers received exemptions. Imports of dairy products from the EU likewise were subject to anti-dumping probes. The EU runs a massive trade deficit with China: over 300 billion euros ($348 billion) last year. However, the trading bloc is a major exporter of pork and key supplier of byproducts such as ears, snouts, feet, and other items considered to be delicacies in China. In September, China ordered preliminary anti-dumping duties, in the form of security deposits, of 15.6% to 32.7% for pork imports from EU companies that collaborated with the anti-dumping investigation, and up to 62.4% for all others. Chinas Commerce Ministry concluded that the EU was dumping pork and pig by-products in China, selling them at prices below production costs or domestic market prices, and harming Chinas pork industry. The final tariff rates of 4.9%-19.8% are due to take effect beginning Wednesday and last for five years. Spain, the Netherlands and Denmark will be the most affected. The Commerce Ministry said the new tariff will apply to all kind of pork products, fresh, chilled, frozen, dried, pickled, smoked or salted. It said it had reached its conclusions in an objective, fair and impartial manner. EU exports of pork products to China peaked at 7.4 billion euros ($7.9 billion) in 2020 when Beijing turned to imports to meet domestic demand after its pig farms were devastated by a swine disease. But it has reduced imports as it has rebuilt its herds. Elaine Kurtenbach, AP business writer
Category:
E-Commerce
We all have goals, but at least some of the difference in achieving those goals comes down to how you frame them. In a study published in PLOS One, the researchers separated participants goals into two basic categories: Avoidance goals: stopping or preventing an undesired behavior.Stop ignoring interpersonal issues between employees. So is stop putting off important tasks. So is stop watching so much TV. So is anything you want, or wish, to stop doing or do less often. Approach goals: adopting a new behavior. Complete the most important task on my to-do list every day. So is Compliment at least one employee every day. So is Eat at least one serving of vegetables at lunch and dinner. Why does the difference matter? Compared with people who set avoidance goals, people who set approach goals were significantly more likely to stay the course. Partly thats because its more satisfying to do something you want to do than to avoid something you dont want to do. For example, for decades I drank a ton of Diet Mountain Dew. When I finally decided I wanted to drink less soda, I set an approach goal: Instead of setting a goal like Stop drinking Diet Mountain Dew in the morning, my goal was Drink water with my protein bar and banana for breakfast. Later, I extended my water rule to lunch, and dinner, and snacks. The result, of course, was drinking less Diet Mountain Dew. But I wasnt avoiding soda; I was approaching water. The same can be true for any habit you want to change. If you tend to avoid getting involved in interpersonal disputes between employees, dont say youll stop ignoring interpersonal issues. Make it your goal to build a better sense of camaraderie and teamwork, and choose activities or behaviors that support your goal. Maybe youll spend a little time each day working in the department where two employees arent getting along. Maybe youll create situations where people can work together on something positive: A boss of mine once assigned me and an employee I was feuding with to a project with a potentially significant reward, and in the process we quickly ironed out our differences. Just about every avoidance goal can be turned into an approach goal; simply determine the positive behavior or habit that you want to have replace what you want to stop doing, and focus on doing that. If you want to watch less TV, make it your goal to read 20 pages every evening. If you want to spend less time in your office, make it your goal to walk the shop or office floor first thing in the morning. If you want to spend less time on social media, start an activity that makes it hard to engage. (If your goal is to take a walk every night with a partner or friend, and you leave your phones behind, voil: more actual social time, much less social media.) If you want to stop doing one thing, or do less of it, choose another thing you want or need to do, and make doing that your goal: Do (this), and youll naturally have less opportunity to do (that). Thats the beauty of approach goals. Stopping a habit is easier when you dont have as much time or opportunity to engage in that habit. Besides: Its a lot more fun to start doing something you really want to do than it is to try to stop doing something youve decided you shouldnt. Jeff Haden
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||