Making sense of the data center backlash

[Music] Hello and howdy everyone, this is Vultz for July 20, 2026. Making sense of the data center backlash. I'm your host David Roberts. Today we have a special treat for you Vultz listeners. Any of you I'm sure listen to the podcast Energy Empire, co-hosted by repeat Vultz guest Jigger Shah and Jamie Nolan. Jigger and Jamie recently invited me onto the pod along with Arnab Powell, the head of deploy action, a nonprofit working to ease barriers to clean energy deployment in the US. Our subject was the data center backlash. What's driving it, where it might go, what role utilities play in it, and how hyperscalers should proceed. It was a fun and lively conversation. If you'd like to see the video version, you can go to the Energy Empire website, but if you are a sensible person who understands that podcasts are and should always remain an audio medium, here it is for your listening pleasure. Enjoy. Dave, how are you? Good, good Jigger, good to talk to you. Good to talk with you. I feel like the episode that we did together on doing data centers, the dumb way has set off a fire chain of comments, and now we're back. I got a lot of feedback about that episode. A lot of people really liked it. Oh, that's good. You didn't get a lot of negative feedback. No, no, no. People are so desperate just to hear someone who knows something about this. People are in a fog, so I think it was very helpful. Well, I want to bring in Arnab Powell into this conversation. He runs deploy action and was really the energy behind getting the gridulization stuff passed in Virginia and getting some of the other things done in California. He's on the ground working with politicians, but also working with legislators who are trying to pass some of this stuff. I feel like some of this is just one-on-one stuff which we covered last time, but now we're moving into polling data and governors who are inundated with hate mail. Public opinion, which involves a large measure of animal spirits. Let's see. Let's start by where is your head at? How essential it is that we win the AI race and that AI is going to change our lives forever. Because ultimately, all of this comes down to the fact that I think people believe that this is a technology of the future that we need to own, right? Yes, but I, like I think, much of the public have not really been persuaded of that, mostly because there don't seem to have been many attempts to persuade as opposed to bang me over the head with a mallet about it. If you ask me, the proximity of cheap, boundless energy says much more about humanity's bright future than AI. I think that's the revolution that's exciting. That's the revolution I'm excited about. It's bizarre to me that it's been shunted to some sort of asterisk after AI. I'm much more interested in the energy revolution. And about AI, I just don't know. I think like most people I just don't know. I know that it looks ridiculous to me that every corporate CEO, every university president, every sort of wealthy elite is trying to force this down people's throats beneath them. I mean, I'm irritated at that as anybody else. But as to the long term effects, I have no idea. And I don't really think anybody else does either. Whereas I know boundless cheap energy is going to be a very good thing. Yeah. So Dave, I think the tour, I think you agree with us, are very related in that people's unknown of AI is I think causing their inability to wonder at this energy future that you're talking about. And I think we're seeing that play out with all these data center moratoriums, where we're seeing them across, was 120 of them across 38 states. There's 75 projects that's worth $130 billion. You're seeing national legislation from Senator Bernie Sanders and Congressman and Alexandria O'Cortez with the federal moratorium. And you've covered this energy transition for almost 20 years. I think we all agree that the data center revolution could be a part of the next big energy transition. So as any build out in that time generated this kind of organized opposition this past, because two years ago, no one was really talking about this. I think you can't understate the spectacular incompetence of the communications and the way this has been rolled out. I mean, I think if if hyperscalers had said from the beginning, the AI revolution and decarbonization go together are part of the same revolution and we're willing to pay the extra money and take the extra time to ensure that building out these giant data centers is going to strengthen the grid and fund a lot of clean energy. I think they could have harnessed a lot of goodwill. But instead they're in the paper saying, you have to do our thing and to do it, you have to abandon your climate goals. I mean, it said, I read that explicitly in a UK paper the day the data center industry is saying to the UK government, you got to abandon your climate goals because we have to do our thing fast and we're not patient enough and we don't care enough and we're not going to spend enough to do it in a clean way. I think it could have been and still could be, if done right, part of the same broad push for an abundant clean future, but they just have completely botched the PR aspects of this and it doesn't help that like Elon Musk is out there buying turbines on truck beds and saying screw you to the locals and polluting the air etc etc out of just unbelievable air against about AI that the public is not bought into. I mean, they have no one to blame but themselves for this backwards. I think that is obvious and it has been a pattern that's repeated itself since Bill Gates stepped in it in the late 90s, right? They wait until they do it all wrong and then they're like, oh, what's all this backlash? We should pay people to help us with this. I mean, I was interested there was one Nevada hearing which I thought encapsulated it really well where they basically compared the AI data centers to the 19th century gold rush and they basically started the precipice of the new Wild West, right? And it does feel like that. I mean, that is what you're talking about with Elon Musk and Memphis, right? With unregulated gas turbines but it's also the folks in Loud County in Virginia where when there is a, you know, the vast majority of diesel generators are only permitted to 100 hours a year worth of runtime. The diesel generators for Loud and County are permitted for 800 hours a year at runtime and they run the entire month of August such that anybody with any sort of underlying asthma conditions can't breathe in Northern Virginia. Like it does feel like at some point they are coming at this saying we are going to make so much money that we really just don't care about your well-being at all. And I would add, I mean, I think a huge piece of this and this is what I think is the central problem for our side which is full of technocrats is there is a large element of just sort of animal spirit to this. People feel like rich powerful people are running rampant. They don't have to follow any rules. They don't face any accountability. This feels like they're betting our future. It might work out it might not but none of them will be hurt by it if it doesn't work out. Just another classic example of like they're not going to pick up the pieces if this all falls apart or if the if the demand doesn't show up or if you know a bunch of empty warehouses get built, they're not going to be hurt. There's a lot there's a huge element of this of just people feel like the wealthy and the rich and the powerful are just out of control. Accountability is dead and this is something they can grab onto and control. Like this is the only piece of that that they have any control over so they're grabbing onto it and blocking it. I don't I mean, I think a lot of it is not any sort of rational calculation or empirical calculation of the effects or you know, calculations about decarbonization or anything else is just like this is a place where I can throw myself in the gears and stop the wealthy elite from just rolling over us. So and again, like that's their fault that people feel that way. So I 100% agree with that and I think right now people feel like they can't control the political system. So their ability to block projects at the local level is their version of a vote. But you guys were talking about this being a communications issue. Like, yeah, probably, but I really think it's just a trust issue. And I think no matter what the tech industry said, like even if they came out and said, we're going to help everyone. We're going to build schools. We're going to build this 100% clean. And we're going to bring down your bills, which is what I think we all would want to advocate for. I think the vast majority of the public would be like, yeah, I'll believe it when I see it. And I trace everything. I mean, anybody who's followed me for any time online knows I trace everything back to below social trust. This is sort of, you know, if you talk to social scientists, they say you want to do anything good collectively. You have to have social trust, the less you have, the less you can do. And it is coupled with our diseased and degraded information environment. So nobody feels like they can get a straight story. Everybody feels like everybody's talking their own game. Nobody knows what's really going on. So like this is just something concrete. It's something that they can grab onto and not feel like the world is this impenetrable chaos controlled by forces out of there, you know, beyond them. And the trust issue, I think, is backed up by the numbers. So only 8% of data center opponents actually live near one. And 70% of Americans opposed to data center near them, which is what Gallup shows. And the search light institute found that 54% would oppose one within five miles. I guess what we're trying to figure out here is like, I think our technocratic industry is like, well, here's how we figure out a way to do this without emissions. And here's how we bring people in like, are we solving for the right problem? Or should we be solving for something else? Well, I mean, maybe, maybe jigger has a different perspective, but I think they're trying to solve those problems because those are the kind of problems they know how to solve. And this is, this goes beyond data centers. This is a larger social and political problem is, is how do you solve the degraded information environment? How do you solve low social trust? How do you get your hands around these animal spirits? This vague, free-floating meyasma of discontent and anger? I don't know how to solve that. The tech guys don't know how to solve that. Like, you know what I mean? It seems like solving that requires many, many years, many fundamental reforms that don't seem anywhere in evidence. This is not a technocratic problem that you can just solve with a few switches or paying a little extra for this or that. This is a bigger problem in our politics. So, you know, they kind of are trying to solve what they know how to solve. Yeah. I mean, I do think that part of the problem with this, I think as you know, is that we sit here today in 2026 and we don't have universal healthcare, right? We were promised that Obamacare was going to work as somebody who was on like, you know, the exchanges for a while, like that sucks. It sucks even more now, right? And so, you know, like, things, what did you call it in your podcast, the inshitification, a sort of of everything, right? Yes. And so, anybody who loses their job risks ruin and here comes an industry, comes along saying, hey, we're going to destroy all your jobs. Let us build these data centers so we can do it. What did they expect to happen from that? No, I mean, exactly what happened. But I think that when you're a governor, I mean, every governor I've ever met believes that they are the person who's in charge of economic development for their state, right? So they want these data centers. I mean, they could say whatever they want to say, right? Governor Abbott's up there talking tough to data centers now and et cetera. But like in general, they're the economic development person for their state. So they wanted in the state, right? And I think my sense is this is not dissembring to fracking where everyone's going to hate stuff and then, but we're still going to get whatever it is. 15 gigawatts of new data centers that get built every year just won't be in that neighborhood that killed it. It'll be in some other neighborhood that didn't kill it, right? So part of what I'm concerned about in this moment is that the data shows that because we have low social trust that people will just take free stuff. They're like, we'll support your project if we get a battery and a basement, right? The battery that I could touch and feel and have the title too, right? Like, that you can't take away when you go bankrupt, right? And so part of what I'm trying to understand is how do we take this moment and actually, you know, create a third way, right? Because there's going to be a group of people who are always going to believe that data centers are causing cancer and, you know, and I should wear tin foil, right? Then there's a group of people who legitimately are like, the electric utility really is setting us up to screw me, right? They're getting a negative, they're getting an economic development rate. I have a much higher price, et cetera. And oh, by the way, they've like banned my ability to like get data out of my smart meter. I can't seem to like do net meter anymore. Like, I can't even take advantage of the solutions that might save me money, right? That we've all worked so hard to get the cost down by 97% of, right? And so is there a moment in here where you take this and leverage it to get all this other stuff unstuck, right? Permitting reform, not federal purring reform. I mean, like state and local permitting reform so we can match like Australia in terms of solar installations. I mean, I think you have to, the only way forward I see for the data center industry particularly is very concretely at the local level. Like the wild thing is the amount of money involved in these big data centers, you can make them like you can plant bioswales around them. You can help the environment, you can dump money into the community, you can build schools, you can put batteries in people's basements and solar panels on their roofs, you can concretely reduce their energy bills. You can make their community richer, you can make their environment cleaner and it amounts to a rounding error on the amount of money involved in these things. You can do all that stuff for trivial amounts of money. That's insane to me that they're not already doing this. They should have people lining up begging for data centers because I want schools, I want cheaper electricity rates, I want battery, I want micro grids like I want these things too. They could do all that with so little money, the amount of money they're losing by having these things blocked. Dwarfs, what it would take to just do it the right way is just these tech guys are so arrogant. And they're so high on their own supply that they just won't do it the right way. So that's, I mean, there is a moment, but they have to be willing to do it. And as you know, utilities have to be willing to work with them and do it the right way. Like one of the things I'm worried about, Chikur, is I want like on one hand, I'm mixed feelings about this. I'd love to hear your thoughts. On one hand, I'm all for milking these jerks for all the public money we can get out of them. They have money coming out of their wazoo. Let's get as much of it as we can for public benefit. I'm all for that. But I'm a little leery about establishing a precedent where large industrial customers. Everyone has a bespoke rate. Everyone is paying super high rates, everyone, etc. And because there's a lot of other large industrial customers coming along behind, we want to electrify industry. We don't want to establish a precedent where every large industrial customer on the grid faces this cripplingly high bill that not all of them are going to be able to, hey, so there's a fine line there getting public benefit without establishing poor precedence, I think. But Dave, there's precedence of this and what you're just saying in other industries. I'm going to take the real estate industry as a good example because I think there's some overlap. You know, when a big housing developer wants to build like a thousand home project or a 5,000 home project or expand a city, like they often build schools as a part of the process, right? They often pick up the tab on some of the roads and that's sort of how they get this approved. Is there a pathway for these data center companies to still do that or do you think the opposition is so strong that it doesn't matter anymore? I think they can do that if they go in early and they're patient and they're earnest and serious about community engagement and they're willing to spend the time. But this is, I think there's another side to that precedent, like just in Seattle right now, there's this fight about these fees that are charged to developers that are, that are the money is used for affordable housing, right? And that sounds on paper. Great. Rich developers coming in, we're going to milk them for a little money for affordable development. But the practical effect of that is it's slowing down building and we desperately need to build more housing and just building more housing period full stop is better for people who need housing even on the low end of the scale than bespoke one off affordable housing projects. This is exactly my point. I mean, I think that on your tariff issue, I don't know that I have a problem with 30 and 40 megawatt data centers. I really have a problem with 1000 megawatt data centers. So creating a set of rules for things that are above 100 megawatts, I'm fine with. 'Cause I feel like everything else that you're talking about is sub 100 megawatts. And so like I'm not overly worried about industrial manufacturing and lithium processing and all the other stuff that we're talking about there. I think what I'm more concerned about is that you've got all these governors in the crosshairs right now. They're all basically forced to be anti-data center and anti-utility, I think, to run for governor and win this fall. Is that your sense too? - Yes, I mean, there's just nothing easier than identifying a big corporate villain and bashing on them. I mean, that is politics at the easiest setting. And so under pressure people are gonna default to that. So this is what, I mean, this gets back to something you and I have been talking about for, I guess, years now, Jigger, which is there is a win, win, win here. Like the utilities can say to their customers, we let this data center come attached to our grid, but we got a bunch of money out of them to pay for you to have solar panels on your roof and batteries in your basement and we got them to help fund a transmit- - But they don't believe in it. - We milked them and then the data centers can say, hey, we made your community better and then the politicians can say, hey, we forced the utilities to milk the data centers like everybody can say. - No, but Dave, what they'd rather say instead is they got the data centers to pay for all of the upgrades to transmission systems, which will reduce your bill by 0.1 cents per kilowatt hour. And here's a bunch of fancy math that I'm showing that shows that the 10% rate increase I'm charging you was for someone else's mistake, not the data center. And oh, by the way, I still hate the fact that you're putting a battery in your garage and a solar panel on your roof. Like in that world where they still hate the fact that you're taking advantage of your power independence in any way, shape or form, is it not good practice to hate the utility company? - I mean, you're not gonna get any resistance for me for hating on utility companies, Jigger. I'm about to record a whole podcast in a week or two about why they won't do this stuff, but they are in between a rock and a hard place. Now like they've got to, they need an out somehow, right? They need some way out of this. And even if they don't believe in the broad promise of distributed energy like we do, or even if they don't believe in the scale of distributed capacity could make a difference like we do, even if they think it's just little trinkets on a Christmas tree, they need a PR win. Like how do they not get that by now? They need something concrete to show people. - So look, I think you're right on the PR win, but the reason why I'm about the housing example is, 'cause I think that's a place where public sentiment shifted over time. And I think the underlying causes was just pricing, right? So if you look at the old guard left and California's the best example, like the NIMBY environmentalist movement, which is sort of held guard to make sure there isn't development across the coastline in California. There isn't development even in the suburbs. They've lost those battles to a new movement of folks that are saying, hey, we need to build more housing to break down costs. And I don't know if I'm calling that fight over yet. - No, but they're still fighting. - Compared to where it was 20 years ago, it's a completely different ball game. And there is a parallel here where if you actually can convince people of the actual real math, not the math that Jigger's saying, that like, hey, this new load growth will actually reduce costs if we hold utilities accountable in that process. Like there is a real sort of hunger for costs need to come down across the board. And if you can actually bring down someone's utility costs by 20 or 30%, which is what I think some of this demand side work can actually do, I don't think people are gonna care. They're gonna be like, yeah, my bills went down. That's the most important thing. - But I think to Jigger's point, you can't do that unless utilities cooperate. Like, you can in theory do that, but they have to cooperate. They have to be involved in that. You can't do it over them or pass them or through them. They are the gatekeepers. They have to be enthusiastic participants in that. And they're being, we're having to drag them every step. I mean, most of them, not all utilities, et cetera, et cetera. But like, I mean, I would say the vast majority, I mean, municipal utilities, rule-et-a-co-ops, they seem okay with the bargain, right? 'Cause they're saying, we report to the city council. We report to the Koana's Club. So like, we'll like sort of do that, right? Where the investor on utilities always have some sort of like, they always have a private jet that they're taking to the thing, by the way. And then they take the private jet in and then they cry about the fact that like, "Our stuff is so old." You wouldn't imagine how old our stuff is. We need to upgrade it off. And I was like, but you were investing 20 billion a year in 2003. You're now investing 200 billion this year. At what point do I not believe that you're spending money on repairing old stuff, but instead, I just think I'm paying for your corporate jet. - Well, as you know, the biggest line item of rising costs right now is distribution spending. And I just recorded a pod about how distribution spending is done and determined. And I don't have a lot of people know this, but like if you're a vertically integrated utility, you wanna do spend on generation or transmission. You have to do a bunch of modeling, a bunch of projections. You come under intense regulatory scrutiny about whether you're optimizing that spending. And distribution spending is just a black box. They just call it all mandatory. They just say, "We have to do this." And if you open that black box and look inside, lots of times they're not even tracking the age of their stuff. They're just replacing it on a schedule that is where they can are doing all the gold-plated spending. And they're not even getting the regulatory scrutiny about that. So I mean, I'm all for exposing them to the light and putting them under a tons more discipline. But to do that, you need legislatures and you need regulators on board too. Like, you know, anything you blame utilities for, there's some refracted blame for the regulators for letting them get away with it. And legislators too. But Dave, there's, so I agree with all that. But there's a bias even amongst the people that want to hold utilities accountable. And I've seen this from energy efficiency from decades ago where everyone thinks every solution is supply side. Meaning, oh, we have to build geothermal. The answer's nuclear. The answer's solar. Nobody wants the answer to be efficiency. And, you know, all the states that put in energy efficiency measures over the last 40 years, they, while even if their KWA traits are higher, their overall bills are lower, it has worked. And there is a similar thing we can do with the distribution system. But why is that bias still there? Why are there people who don't believe that, you know, utilizing more than distribution system, putting batteries in isn't actually a real solution? I mean, this is something I started pounding the table about when I wrote for Christ in like 2012, which is once you look into utility regulation, you find this very basic incentive, which is the more they spend, the more they make. The way they make money is by spending money and energy efficiency, if you do it right, means they need to spend less money. And that is true of virtually every distribution system bit of spending. All these batteries and solar panels and micro grids, they all are substitutes for a bunch of gold-plated spending on infrastructure. So that very basic perverse incentive is at the core of utility regulation, of investor on utility regulation in this country. And we just keep talking around it. And you know, efficiency programs are a great example. Like you know, like a utility will do the amount of efficiency that they are required to do by law and by regulation and not one micron more, because every bit they do means they get to spend less money. So you're not going to get utilities enthusiastic about efficiency, pursuing it earnestly and in good faith and with some passion, unless it's a municipal utility unless it's a utility that is just incentivized to reduce cost for its customers. Every investor on utility is going to fight that. They're going to fight distribution side, spending, they're going to fight all of it. And I don't, I mean, you know, I've banged my head on this a million times. I don't know what to do about it. Like there are ways around it. You can do performance-based regulation. You know, you can nibble around the edges of it. You can do clutches to get around it. You can do mandates to force them to do it. But ultimately, I feel like if we're going to electrify everything and the whole economy is going to be on the grid and we need to desperately need to optimize not just for like utility costs, like for macro economic reasons, like the whole economy's on the grid. We're talking about the macro economy now, like, I don't know how we get there with that incentive in place. Like, that's just the elephant in the room that I feel like we have to deal with sooner or later. - Hey there everybody, don't worry. I'm not gonna tell you about a new mattress or push a credit card on you. This isn't an ad. There are no ads on volts. It is supported entirely by listeners like you. If you'll indulge me for a second, I'd like to ask for your support. I started volts because we're all surrounded by depressing news about climate change and misinformation about clean energy. And it's never been more important to share the stories of the real people on the ground doing the real work of transition and all the ingenuity, encourage, and public spirit they are bringing to it. People are hungry to hear these stories, to learn from and find inspiration in them. I've heard from people who change majors or careers after hearing episodes of volts. People using it in classrooms and community groups, even state legislators who have passed bills inspired by specific episodes. Sharing these stories matters. It makes a difference. If you have found value in it and want to help me continue doing it, I hope you will join the community of paid subscribers at volts.wtf. It's about the cost of a cup of coffee a month. If you don't like subscriptions, you can make a one-time contribution. Leave a review on Apple or Spotify or just tell a friend about volts. I'm grateful for any and all support. If you're already a paid subscriber, thank you. And now, back to the show. The whole economy's on the grid. We're talking about the macro economy now. Like, I don't know how we get there with that incentive in place. But I think there's another answer to that question, which is that part of the thing that bothers me and I wrote about this with Raj Panu back in 2015, is that there is a distinct desire on the part, particularly by the right, but it could be by other people as well, to believe that what we're pushing is feminine in nature. Right? Have you heard about this? You know how there's this masculine energy? I like feminine energy. - A fron masculinity, yes. - Right, as if solar panels are like, like solar panels are like sunflowers blowing in the wind. They're not like hard, like real. - You tell me I have to wait. I have to wait on the weather. I can't just force my way. I can't just force it to do what I want when I want. Yes, that is a huge piece of it. - Right, but the latest version of that is, the EIA has now come out with this data showing that we have tripled the amount of natural gas that we mean that they were predicting a year and a half ago, getting installed, right? And when you talk to people like Duke Energy, Duke Energy will say, that's the only way to run a grid. Is building CCGTs that happen to be three times more expensive today than they were two years ago. - It's firm, it's firm like a muscle. - It's a jigger. - But I mean, I guess what I'm trying to understand is that like, I get the fact that the governors were checked out for 40 years. They were like, we have a public service commission, we have this, we have that. I don't need to know anything about this. Now it's a number two political issue. They have to know something about it. I mean, how even Abigail Spanberger was on an entire episode of the political for their energy podcast talking about her energy agenda for like 26 minutes. Like no governor ever did that before, right? And so it does feel like in this moment, they have to actually make some big decisions on these things, right? And so if you're currently in a place where you're spending all of your available energy, just being anti-data centers, what else could you use that passion and like energy for in this moment to help these governors get a handle on this? - I mean, I wish I knew. Like I have listened to people explain to me why capacity that you get out of your already existing grid is somehow inferior or less firm or less manly than new capacity you build with a power plant or people explain to me why solar plus batteries plus a big interconnected grid is not firm in the right way, not as firm, not quite as to messant as a big nuclear power plant. And I don't know why. I don't know why they think that way. And that attitude is sifting up into the political, I can tell you, into the political class, they all are being convinced all over again that renewable energy is weak and in constant and unreliable. So I don't know how you get around that other than just showing them. I mean, at the very basic level, this is what I did a podcast with Steve McBe about this about just the clean electrification industries, inability to speak up on its own behalf and to articulate its own case and to get good information to lawmakers. Like a lot of the legislators, like a lot, even like senators who are in charge of energy committees don't really understand the revolution that is underway across the world in clean electrification. They think it is a nice little extra. So part of it is just the industry getting a little swagger, getting a little confidence and not having its main vehicle for lobbying and communication be half composed of gas. That might help too if it depends on voice. I think that's exactly right. I mean, I certainly think that Chip Royce saw a little swagger. Yeah, also, I mean, finally, somebody got whacked on the nose. I mean, you can debate about the practical, you know, the pragmatic outcome of that whether or not you can debate it at all. I think that when you promote stupid ass shit, you should lose your job. Like I think that's pretty neat. We need two or three of those, I think, from really good to your three. It does. We're gonna have to look at the full effect. Like they need to see that it's a real steady thing. Yeah, I think we'll get two or three of those as this cycle alone. I think in general, one of the things that's happening right now, like at least on the ground where I'm operating, is that almost everybody in a decision-making role in Texas understands how powerful solar and battery storage are and that their grid has been saved by solar and battery storage. And I would suggest to you that almost nobody understands it outside of talking points in the PJM. Like every governor is using the right talking points, but if you ask them what's being said in a closed door room, I think they'd rather have more natural gas plants built than 10,000 megawatts of battery storage. We're at roughly 19% of the peak in Texas being battery storage. It's 0.2% of the peak in PJM being battery storage. Yes, and they, you know, politics, the higher you are, the more risk averse you tend to be. And because this is the information environment they're surrounded by to really commit to solar and batteries, to really commit to distributed capacity would be a huge gamble for them. I mean, I think they feel that way of a huge risk, a huge, they would be going out on a limb. Whereas gas plants, they understand, and they are surrounded by gas lobbyists. And now you have clean energy industry groups telling them that gas is firm and that you need firm gas and that if you build renewables, you just have to build gas back up anyway. Like that's what they're hearing all around them. So like it's, I don't think you can ever look to like politicians for bravery, you know? Like we need to surround them with better information and the industry's got to do that for itself. What's your take on that? I got to jump in on this energy efficiency and solar is feminine peace. Because I got a bunch of friends that drive Rivian R2s at Ford Lightning F-150s. And I know some farmers in Pennsylvania that least they're land for solar panels that would disagree. I would say renewables are gender fluid, Jigger. Well, but like, pardon me for bringing the woke perspective here, but there's nothing wrong with feminine energy. Like look around at what masculine energy is doing in the world and in the country right now. Don't you think we could use a little bit more feminine energy? Like I don't want to try to claim that like EVs are tough too and they can tow just as much. You know, I don't want to like compete on that ground. Like it's a dumb, regressive, you know, dip shitty way to approach this whole subject anyway. Like tell me it's feminine, that's fine. I was like, oh, so it's more practical and more like results focused great. Yeah, no, look, I agree with that. I just think it could be different things to different people. I don't want to box. I don't want to box a sin to one to one stereotype. I'll take gender fluid. Oh my god. All right. So let's move on to the next phase, right? Which is that on May 4th, the NERC, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, issued a level three essential actions alert. It's highest severity and one that rarely uses after multiple incidents where more than a gigawatt data center load dropped off the grid in seconds. Fast enough to threaten frequency stability. across whole interconnections, right? And so at some point, right? Like I guess what I'm trying to understand is, are they trying to move fast and break things? I mean, this is yet another example of a problem that is 100% foreseeable and 100% solvable with a trivial amount of money. Like they all could have just put more batteries in. You know what I mean? This is the volt slogan. Everything is batteries. I mean, they could have just put more batteries in. They could have had more buffer. They could have avoided this ever happening, but they just are arrogant and they don't care. And they just think that because they can wave AI around, everybody has to defer, everybody has to get out of their way, everybody has to accommodate to them. Like that is such a solvable problem. I did a whole podcast on it. And I can summarize a whole podcast in one word, just do more batteries, you know? But they didn't. Like it's wild. I think we talked about this a little bit, but there's a consensus forming around groups like the Searchlight Institute and the Breakthrough Institute. And we've seen a paper published in March proposing an American grid infrastructure fund where hyperscalers paying to a dedicated fund in exchange for faster connections. And then that money would flow from utilities for large scale transmission and generation. Now, you said this crowd treats distributed capacity as a marginal efficiency plane. This is sort of what we've been talking about about how it's really undervalued and not looked at. So make the affirmative case for distributed capacity as serious supply. Well, I almost don't, I mean, like capacity is capacity. I don't know how else, I don't know how else to put it. Like you turn, you flip the switch and something comes on or it doesn't. Like you don't know if that capacity is coming from distributed energy or a VPP or a new power plant. Like it's either there or it's not. And they, I mean, this is very frustrating 'cause this is just yet another example in the energy world where the obvious answer is both and. And I think really if you got any of these people in a room and could talk to them, you could get everybody to that page very quickly. Yes, it's both and yes, obviously we need to maximize distributed capacity because we're under an incredible time crunch and we've got gigawatts and gigawatts of spare capacity laying around. So of course you want to exploit it. Like what is the argument against exploiting it? Like it's just mind boggling to me. So of course you want to do that. And then of course it is also true that behind data centers are coming the electrification of transportation and industry and heating and cooling and the rest of the economy is well of course we're gonna have to 2X or 3X our grid. Like how big it'll have to get. I think we can disagree on. I think I have a lot more face and distributed capacity than they do. I think these projections for how much more heavy infrastructure we'll need are overblown but I know we're gonna need a lot. So like of course we want to do both. I don't know why we always end up in this. Like it's hard for me not to see that. As a species of those peoples, fanatical obsession with lecturing the left with lecturing hippies with somehow saying that the existing groups or the existing movement is doing it wrong. For some reason that is the only way they know how to frame anything and I get it because that framing gets you attention in DC, that framing gets, then you can get a bunch of conservatives who say, oh you're bashing the left, I'll come amplify you. I don't know why these people don't notice that the right comes along and amplifies their criticisms of the left. But then when it comes to their solutions. (laughs) Yeah. Right, the fetches, they get used over and over again to bash the left. I don't know why we can't all just have a little solidarity. We need it all. The nuanced problem that I have with this entire line of thinking is that you have to assume that the current structure of electric utilities and the regulators is competent. And so like you basically have to assume that this money will go into a common pool and be competently spent by the people we've just been bashing. And so I would much prefer that money go into a battery in my garage than to go to these people. Right? And so like I think one of the big challenges that we have in this moment is that, we do clearly have the technology today that we didn't have 15 years ago when RMI put out that reporter on what is it what unplugging from the grid or whatever it was called. Like we have the technology today. For me to meet 92% of my electricity needs under a NEM 3.0 structure where I don't get paid anything to export into the grid. Right? Right, just put solar panels on a roof and battery storage and I just make sure my battery is empty at 10 a.m. every day and I fill it up with cheap solar power and then run my house on the battery. That whole construct is like 12, 13 cents a kilowatt hour. And so you're like, you're charging me 19. I could just do 92% of what I do for like 12 to 13 cents a kilowatt hour, right? And so like I think that it is shocking to me that having worked for 20 years to get the cost of solar down by 97% and to get Wall Street to love doing securitizations and bonds and all this other stuff for solar power that we're still trying to figure out how these solutions are marginal. But sugar, like you know, I think it's easy to throw around the term competence. I think there's plenty of competent people at the utilities. There's plenty of competent regulators. Their job is to do what the laws tell them to do. And if the laws allow them to rent seek, they'll rent seek. That's what they're supposed to do. I'm, you know, let me give you a good example of this going back to California. You know how the rate structures in California, generation rates have knock on up. They've been flat for decades in California now or at least the last decade or so. That's because it's decoupled and they can't make money off of it, right? It's our job to change the rules. So if we do do this and we work together with the data centers, the hyperscalers, we have to change the rules so that the utilities are either incentivized or required to use more of their grid and to do what we're talking about. That is on us and not just the three of us here on all of us. Well, it's kind of on you. I mean, it's kind of on deploy action. I'll say, aim into that. And I wanted to add one other thing in this discussion. There is a ton of focus now from these same people about permitting reform, about making it easier to build, about removing barriers to building. And again, like in principle, I agree. Like all that stuff is true. But it's interesting to me that it's always the solutions on that score that get amplified and that get taken up and that are quote unquote bipartisan are all about cutting this and cutting that, cutting this, deregulating this, deregulating that, cutting this regulation, cutting that regulation. The other side of that, even if you read the original abundance book, the other side of that is fully staffing the relevant agencies and regulatory agencies and over seeing agencies and government agencies and all these regulatory and governing bodies, fully staffing them and funding them. That's another way to speed things up is by spending money on state capacity, is by spending money on government capacity on creating fully funded, robust, competent government. And for some reason, that side of things, even though it's like half the abundance pitch constantly falls out of this discussion and we're always left with the slash this and slash that. So like I would like to fund, to you know, to Juggers Point about I'd like to have competent people on charge of this. I would, you know, you can create competent federal agencies but they need funding and they need staff. And so if you're making common cause with people whose mission in life is to slash government and to slash money for government and to funnel tax, you know, tax cuts to rich people, then maybe you should like look in the mirror and think about whether it's in your best long-term interests to form common cause with these people. Maybe you should couple your calls for greater speed with calls for greater state capacity. I would just want them to make that point. - Yeah, and look, I think that point, that's the most under talked about point in this whole process. Like let's just do some simple math, right? A utility executive makes between half a million and a million dollars a year. The regulator at the Public Utilities Commission is making $150,000. Like how are we? - I know which utility CEO you're talking about. - That's an L.A. - I said executive. - Yeah, I said executive. - I said executive. - Utility CEO is making over $10 million. I understand that. - Right. - But you know, a director to VP level executive starts out at between half a million and a million dollars a year but that's still five times as much as the regulators making. So like we're creating a system where the folks that are doing the regulating aren't going to be able to stick around long-term, right? - And think about NEPA reviews too. Like everybody wants to put these restrictions on NEPA or just put like NEPA review must be done in a year. But if you don't fully fund and staff, the agencies that are responsible for those reviews, all you're doing is saying we're not gonna do those reviews, right? So why is fully funding and staffing, the people involved in those reviews not part of this discussion? And why is that not a big, as big a part of this discussion? - All right, so as we get towards the end of this conversation, I wanna make sure we talk a little bit about the midterms 'cause you've got 36 governors that are running for reelection or election this fall. This is clearly going to be an issue, right? You've got major Republican governors from Texas to Wyoming that have put out pretty harsh press releases saying that they are gonna stand tough against those data centers, right? And so what I'm trying to understand is that if you're actually running a campaign this fall, right? We sort of know what Mikey Cheryl did last year, right? She really was talking about the rate freeze, right? Which, you know, I've got my cobbles with, but that's fine, I think it worked. I think Spanberger was just like, you know, I'm gonna be more competent. And she passed pretty comprehensive set of bills in Virginia that now she has to actually try to implement, which Dominion is gonna try to toward her at every move, I'm sure. And so I'm just trying to understand, again, like where you channel all of this enthusiasm, anger, conversation, I mean, like we generally operate in this niche. I mean, you don't find it boring, and I don't find it boring, but other people find it boring. But it's broken through, right? So the point where there's a lot of our friends who generally find us boring, like we're now interested in these topics when they call us up. - I always joke, I used to, you know, I spent like the first 15 years in my career going, I wish more people would talk about this stuff, and now I'm like, oh, God. (laughing) What was I thinking? - So what's your sense of like, what should the pundits be talking about? What are their angles? They should be talking about what should they be, you know, like when they're pushing the governors who are running for office and interview on topics, like, you know, like when we're talking about data centers, like how should all of this be handled this fall? - I mean, I stopped understanding politics at all about 10 years ago, (laughing) and haven't understood it since. So I'm probably the wrong person to ask. I mean, I'd like to think that a comprehensive package of competent good policies that, I mean, you can take a whack at utilities, like I think, cutting back on utility ROE is a perfectly legitimate, populist policy that also has merit, and like requiring data centers to pay into a fund that's used for community benefit, or used for building out the grid, or used for distributed capacity, or all three is a populist policy that has merit. I just think there's a, you want governors with staffing and good information who can navigate this, who can make the populist gestures, who can respond to the populist energy, who can show, who can demonstrate that they get it, they understand the anger and they're responding to it, without being pushed into dumb shit that's going to have long term detriment. Like that's the trick here, that's the line to walk, and I don't know any, you know, I don't know there's a formula for that state to state. Like you just have to, you just have to think of what are ways where I can signal, I hear you, I understand the anger, I'm responding to the anger, but let's not do anything that's gonna hobble us later. I don't even mind necessarily if you pass like a one year moratorium, or a six month moratorium, something like that. - Like your tongue, Dave Roberts. - Just get through the election. Just do a moratorium that lasts through the election, then everybody will tune back out and you can like do competent policy, but as long as you know what you're doing, right? And you have some eye on the long term, needs here in the long term direction of things. It's just like, this is always the trick in US government is the public is ill informed. Most of the people yelling at you are ill informed, you need in some way to respond to them in a way that shows that you hear them, but you need to respond in a way that doesn't inadvertently cripple your state or cripple the future grid or cripple the growth of the things we want to see grow. And I don't know that there's a formula for that. I just like, just be careful very carefully. That's the, that's my answer. - Well, now we had Grant Hillman, and she gave us a little bit of a playbook. What's your playbook? - Yeah, so I think my playbook is much simpler. I think there's all of, you know, from what I've learned, all of politics and I'm with Dave, I don't know how to predict things anymore. I don't think anyone does. But all of politics really comes down to two emotions, hope and fear. And in the absence of hope, fear always wins. And this is true all across the board. And it's like, you know, Donald Trump's president for a lot of reasons I have no idea, but when there's no one else that's hopeful, the fearful candidate will win. And in our situation where candidates aren't at play, fear is winning because it's the fear of AI. It's the fear of data centers. It's the fear of the tech companies. And the only way to beat that is to offer genuine hope, which is like, if I'm governor, Pritzker, if I'm governor Shapiro, if I'm governor Cheryl, if I'm incoming governor, Basera. Yeah, I'm calling that one right now, Jigger, to say, you know. - You heard it here first. - Yeah, I heard it here first, but I want to go on. - California is going to look at the Democrat. - Yeah. (laughing) - I will, I want to go to the public and be like, this is our opportunity to cut you in on the next industrial revolution, right? This is our opportunity to bring you in and here's how it's going to help you. And now I say that's like, I will make sure that we are not taken for a ride by these technology companies because I am confident at what I would do. That's what I would say if I were governor. Let me just render myself a cliche by saying, well, let's look at this mom-done guy. Like he struck an incredible balance of personal happiness and joyful warrior energy and hopeful energy. And he had a few headline policies that responded to that populist energy, not necessarily policies that technocrats loved, like a rent freeze or whatever, or a government grocery store, like all the technocrats are lecturing him. But ultimately those are pretty small ball policies but they send the right signal. And then behind that, he's just governing competently. He's just governing as a competent technocrat. So like that's the mix there, like get the right energy, a few high profile policies that make people happy and think you're fighting for them and then behind the scenes just do government well. - It doesn't hurt that he figured out a way to get the next to win the championship. - Yeah. - So real cool. - But Dave, on the mom-done point, you're right. And Jira, we're getting to the end here. But they always ask him about Donald Trump, about anything. And his answer is simple. If it will help bring down costs for New Yorkers, I will work with him. That is the politics of hope. And everyone leans on the fact that, oh, he's a democratic socialist, that's not his draw. I know so many people in New York City that are not socialists at all that voted for. - No one knows what that means. No one knows what those words mean outside of political obsessive circles. - Yeah, yeah. And that's the type of frame we have to take to this. It's not finding a different bad guy. It's being like, if it will help you, we will do it. It's like, you know, you ask Jigger, like are we pro data center or anti-data center? - We're neither. We're if the data centers can help the public around it, we'll support it. If not, I don't know why we would support it, right? - That's right. - Well, with our Dave. - And I've said this a million times, and I'll just say it one more time, but we are all of us who want hope and competence all fighting against an information environment filled with fear and lies and misinformation, and terrible dynamics at every level. And like sooner or later, somebody's got to think about how to address that problem. We can't just work around it. We can't just tip to around the results of it forever. Sooner or later, like somebody's got to engage with improving the information environment. I don't know who that is. Everybody can play their part, but like that's got to be on the table. - And it gets you and Jigger. - Yeah, exactly. - You got to do that, Dave. - Meesh podcasts or the other future. - With that Dave, I feel like every time we talk, we're driven to drink and we'll need a whiskey at the end of quarantine. - And somewhere. - But thanks for joining us and doing with this with us. I do think this is a super important topic, and I do think that we do have the right people around the table, and I think a lot of the investment that you've made in informing people of last few years has unearthed a lot of solutions that are ready for prime time. And so I think we actually have data centers [BLANK_AUDIO] willing to pay for people's trust and I think solutions providers that can provide it. Here's Hoping. Thanks, everybody. You've been listening to Voltz, founded and hosted by me, David Roberts, produced by Nate Peevy, and supported entirely through the generosity of listeners like you. If you enjoyed this conversation, please consider telling a friend about Voltz. That's how this show grows and survives through word of mouth. See you next time.