This $23B number that gets thrown around is not the increase to the public. The wording in the referenced report is
> Based on actual auction clearing prices and quantities and uplift MW, inclusion of existing and forecast data center load growth resulted in a combined total increase in capacity market revenue for the 2025/2026 BRA, the 2026/2027 BRA, and the 2027/2028 BRA of $23,100,955,341.
This is the increase in revenue to PJM from adding datacenter customers, and includes both the amount that datacenters paid as well as the amount that other customers paid due to higher prices from datacenters. So Fortune calling it an increase to "the public" means that they didn't read the report they are using as their source and are probably just repeating what they thought someone else meant.
Bloomberg in the past worded it as "data centers will add at least $23 billion to customer bills" in April and "added a minimum of $23 billion to customer bills" in February. Which while technically correct (datacenters are customers) seems meant to be misleading. And now that's the number that's getting thrown around as the increase to "the public".
The part I don't get is that the journalists could just give the actual number for the quantity that they are referring to (the amount that non-datacenters paid due to higher rates due to datacenter loads): when I calculated it a few months ago I think it was something like $16 billion rather than $23 billion. I feel like the story would have the same impact if the headline number was $16B as $23B, but $16B has the benefit of not being a misrepresentation of the situation.
---
Also I would definitely recommend checking out the PJM BRA report. It's a bit dense but not too hard to follow, and my personal takeaway was that the PJM market is just very dysfunctional and they are blaming the datacenters instead. I thought SemiAnalysis had a good analysis of it: https://newsletter.semianalysis.com/p/are-ai-datacenters-inc...
Or how about this framing (using your own numbers): for every dollar a datacenter is charged for electricity, regular hard-working Americans get charged $2.
The hill to die on might be the one behind your house that has a nice view of the illegal methane generators that these data centers are using, because they sure as hell aren't running on solar.
Well, I think some of those hardworking Americans would be happy to pay some of those $2 because otherwise all the SaaS services and other services, platforms, and tools running in datacenters wouldn’t be accessible to them.
Or did I read this wrong and somewhere it said only datacenters running inference or training for LLMs?
The thing people are pissed about is giving better rates to datacenters.
Compare this to most of Europe (and Texas if I understood correctly) where the detacenters buy their electricity from the same market as everyone else (in Europe the spot market or futures) meaning they effectively pay the same price as everyone else.
It’s when they do some back room deal with the local public utility to get 50% off and offload the real costs to the public when people get angry.
Is there an example of this happening? Isn't the problem that datacenters are drawing electricity at the market rate and driving the cost up, rather than paying a surcharge for the difference?
I don't think the mechanism is that different, and even if it was Europe, etc would have the same issue - data centers would still bid up the price for existing capacity, and the future capacity added to accommodate the dcs would be added at a higher marginal rate too because scarcity of new supply + base load nature of dc loads. So the problem will get worse before it gets better
Concrete examples? Quick google only shows small discounts for DCs relative to other wholesale industrial consumers, which could be partially explained away by the flat load, lack of stability concerns, no need for power factor correction hardware, etc. I think 'bidding up the market' is the dominant mechanism, here in Australia (spot market + futures) consumer prices are projected to increase 26%.
In Quebec, new data center will have to pay almost twice the price of what citizen are paying. it's 14 cents/kwh vs about 8 cents/kwh. Crypto center are set to pay 18 cents/kwh. That's the advantage of having a public utility.
True, I just left a hipster coffee shop in LA, and the liberals were whispering about their love of SaaS services, and their desire to socialize the costs of compute infrastructure.
Fwiw this got changed about a week ago, where they changed the logic to match the documentation rather than default to sending your prompts to their servers. This is why so many people have noticed this happening but if you ask an AI about it right now it will say this is not true.
Personally I think it's necessary to run opencode itself inside a sandbox, and if you do that you can see all of the rejected network calls it's trying to make even in local mode. I use srt and it was pretty straightforward to set up
I think it's interesting that they dropped the date from the API model name, and it's just called "claude-opus-4-6", vs the previous was "claude-opus-4-5-20251101". This isn't an alias like "claude-opus-4-5" was, it's the actual model name. I think this means they're comfortable with bumping the version number if they want to release a revision.
They are definitely capable of writing such statements, which you can see in their enterprise products. In my Google Workspace gemini app it says pretty prominently and clearly:
Your [ORGNAME] chats aren’t used to improve our models
So they definitely understand that people want to hear that their data isn't being used for training, and they know how to say it clearly and reassuringly. Which makes the omission of that in their consumer products more telling in my view.
says Google's datacenter water consumption in 2023 was 5.2 billion gallons, or ~14 million gallons a day. Microsoft was ~4.7, Facebook was 2.6, AWS didn't seem to disclose, Apple was 2.3. These numbers seem pulled from what the companies published.
The total for these companies was ~30 million gallons a day. Apply your best guesses as to what fraction of datacenter usage they are, what fraction of datacenter usage is AI, and what 2025 usage looks like compared to 2023. My guess is it's unlikely to come out to more than 120 million.
I didn't vet this that carefully so take the numbers with a grain of salt, but the rough comparison does seem to hold that Arizona golf courses are larger users of water.
Agricultural numbers are much higher, the California almond industry uses ~4000 million gallons of water a day.
I was also surprised when someone asked me about AI's water consumption because I had never heard of it being an issue. But a cursory search shows that datacenters use quite a bit more water than I realized, on the order of 1 liter of water per kWh of electricity. I see a lot of talk about how the hyperscalers are doing better than this and are trying to get to net-positive, but everything I saw was about quantifying and optimizing this number rather than debunking it as some sort of myth.
I find "1 liter per kWh" to be a bit hard to visualize, but when they talk about building a gigawatt datacenter, that's 278L/s. A typical showerhead is 0.16L/s. The Californian almond industry apparently uses roughly 200kL/s averaged over the entire year -- 278L/s is enough for about 4 square miles of almond orchards.
So it seems like a real thing but maybe not that drastic, especially since I think the hyperscaler numbers are better than this.
I've found a method that gives me a lot more clarity about a company's privacy policy:
1. Go to their enterprise site
2. See what privacy guarantees they advertise above the consumer product
3. Conclusion: those are things that you do not get in the consumer product
These companies do understand what privacy people want and how to write that in plain language, and they do that when they actually offer it (to their enterprise clients). You can diff this against what they say to their consumers to see where they are trying to find wiggle room ("finetuning" is not "training", "ever got free credits" means not-"is a paid account", etc)
For Code Assist, here's their enterprise-oriented page vs their consumer-oriented page:
I agree in general, but I think some important context here is that the author of this post was previously on the OpenAI board (the board that fired Sam Altman).
The worst part to me is the privacy nightmare with AI Studio. It's essentially impossible to tell whether any particular API call will end up being included in their training data since this depends on properties that are stored elsewhere and are not available to the developer -- even a simple property such as "does this account have billing enabled" is oddly difficult to evaluate, and I was told by their support that because I at one point had any free credits on my account that it was a trial account and not a billed account even though I had a credit card attached and was being charged. I don't know if this is true and there is no way for me to find out.
At some point they updated their privacy policy in regards to this, but instead of saying that this will cause them to train on your data, now the privacy policy says both that they will train on this data and that they will not train on this data, with no indication of which statement takes precedence over the other.
Unless you are in the free tier of the API we do not train on your data. But let us make it clearer in the policy. If you would like to get more clarity on terms please DM me at @shresbm on X
There are a few conditions that take precedence over having-billing-enabled and will cause AI Studio to train on your data. This is why I personally use Vertex
> Based on actual auction clearing prices and quantities and uplift MW, inclusion of existing and forecast data center load growth resulted in a combined total increase in capacity market revenue for the 2025/2026 BRA, the 2026/2027 BRA, and the 2027/2028 BRA of $23,100,955,341.
This is the increase in revenue to PJM from adding datacenter customers, and includes both the amount that datacenters paid as well as the amount that other customers paid due to higher prices from datacenters. So Fortune calling it an increase to "the public" means that they didn't read the report they are using as their source and are probably just repeating what they thought someone else meant.
Bloomberg in the past worded it as "data centers will add at least $23 billion to customer bills" in April and "added a minimum of $23 billion to customer bills" in February. Which while technically correct (datacenters are customers) seems meant to be misleading. And now that's the number that's getting thrown around as the increase to "the public".
The part I don't get is that the journalists could just give the actual number for the quantity that they are referring to (the amount that non-datacenters paid due to higher rates due to datacenter loads): when I calculated it a few months ago I think it was something like $16 billion rather than $23 billion. I feel like the story would have the same impact if the headline number was $16B as $23B, but $16B has the benefit of not being a misrepresentation of the situation.
---
Also I would definitely recommend checking out the PJM BRA report. It's a bit dense but not too hard to follow, and my personal takeaway was that the PJM market is just very dysfunctional and they are blaming the datacenters instead. I thought SemiAnalysis had a good analysis of it: https://newsletter.semianalysis.com/p/are-ai-datacenters-inc...