Audrey Streb
DCNF Energy Reporter
As Big Tech develops more artificial intelligence (AI) data centers, advocates flaunt the promise of more jobs and innovation, while others warn about the impending power crunch and potential antitrust issues as a handful of companies could dominate the power sector.
Former Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ Antitrust Division Jonathan Kanter told The Wall Street Journal Tuesday that he’s concerned antitrust issues will arise over energy as data centers burn through mass amounts of power, potentially at the expense of local communities. Since data centers burn through so much power, they could dominate the energy sector as they drive up costs for the consumer, though several energy policy experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation that expanding AI is necessary despite the power problems it poses.
“Looking ahead, energy, power is going to be an extremely important area of focus for antitrust enforcers,” Kanter told the WSJ. “Data centers consume more natural resources, and the cost of power goes up, and data centers consume power at the expense of local communities and businesses.” (RELATED: Ready For Blackouts? Techies Are Buying Up One Of The Remaining Reliable Sources Of Power For Their AI Needs)
The Trump administration unveiled an AI plan on July 23 which included the rapid build-out of data centers and noted the vitality of surpassing China in the AI race, all while several energy policy experts, grid watchdogs and the Department of Energy (DOE) warned that America’s already insecure power grid is being strained by soaring data center demand.
Electricity demand is expected to reach a record high in the coming years, rising by 25% by 2030, according to data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) and a report from ICF International. Data centers are driving much of the demand, and some industry experts like Kanter are concerned that Big Tech companies may end up hogging the electricity grid.
Steve Milloy, senior legal fellow at the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, told the DCNF that escalating data center demand and green energy policies are driving up electricity costs and reducing reliability. He added that it would be “no surprise” if environmental groups turned to antitrust threats as Trump dismantles parts of their climate agenda.
“While it’s quite possible that many consumers will face high prices for less reliable power in the near-term because of tremendous data center needs and a grid that has been crippled by green policies, what we actually need are more power plants and fewer green policies,” Milloy told the DCNF. “As their climate agenda fails, it’s no surprise that greens are threatening antitrust prosecutions against Big Tech and electricity generators. The rapidly growing demand for power is such that Big Tech is cutting whatever deals it can with existing power generators pending construction of more conventional (fossil fuel) power plants.”
President Donald Trump has moved to boost conventional energy resources like coal, though he’s also championed resources like nuclear and geothermal. Trump and Congress have cracked down on “market distorting” Biden-era wind and solar subsidies all while the Department of the Interior (DOI) declared that it will not give preferential treatment to resources like wind and solar that it considers to be “foreign-controlled” and “unreliable.”
Trump declared a national energy emergency his first day back in the Oval Office and the DOE has warned that blackouts could increase 100-fold by 2030 if America continues to phase out reliable power sources without suitable replacements. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said at an American Petroleum Institute event on permitting reform in Washington, D.C., on Monday that he considered how to get more power on the grid every day, and that permitting reform is the way forward. Burgum argued that power feeds data centers and AI will drive much-needed innovation.
President of Truth in Energy & Climate Frank Lasee told the DCNF that it would be fair if Big Tech funded power for its data centers, as they are driving up demand. Owners of data centers are reportedly looking to strike deals with energy companies to secure power, with many exploring nuclear energy as a reliable source to meet their growing electricity needs.
“These profitable giants can afford it and should pay their own way,” Lasee said. “Let’s win the AI race with China — without hiking bills for everyday electricity customers. Antitrust violations should only come into play if Big Tech uses their monopoly status on needed services they provide to gouge their customers or collude with their competitors to limit competition among themselves. A hospital or bank needs their data services, they are served best by a competitive, fair market for those services.”
The DOJ declined to comment for this story.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
All this argument (I don’t mean just this post) when the simple answer is staring folks in the face. Nuclear (Fission).
I’m afraid to say I grow weary of the senseless debate.
True, yet IMV, the post took a balanced view and nuclear power can only come on so fast, and one should expect lawfare there as well as every step of the way, including dismantling nut zero.
…
The solution to power hungry monopolies is fairly easy. Require AI Datacenters to supply
Their Own off grid power generation in a CoGen situation where they can pump any excess generation back into the grid for a profit but not draw off the grid. Then the public at large as well as small industries aren’t competing for power with power hungry AI
But you still need enough power to maintain a more or less public grid. It is likely that tech companies can afford to buy all the energy they need so that makes an energy producer having an easy choice if a choice is offered.
The state SHOULD intervene through a license system. It is a public duty. We cannot afford to have the reliable sources go to the tech companies and the public ending up with more unreliables and possible blackouts.
That would not be in the interest of the public.
Bally,
Please reconsider your attachment to a large grid in the style of pre-2000 times.
Australia serves as an example of change.
Past government subsidies of rooftop solar, plus endearment of panel, inverter and battery producer China by recent neo-Communist governments here, has led to rooftop solar providing more than half of electrical generation for several hours a day. Not all goes through the big grid, nobody knows the real numbers. The trend is for less and less grid electricity, also helped by large industrial consumers departing the country because the cost of “renewable” electricity is now too high.
The grid used to be powered mainly by coal combustion, precisely managed for high capacity factors. Recently, coal and other hydrocarbon generation has been relegated to filling in the intermittency of wind and solar, leading to low capacity factors dictated by when the wind blows.
New wind construction has almost stopped as vendors realise that existing wind is now a stranded asset or is heading that way.
The whole Australian electrical supply system based on coal was, before 2000, about the simplest, cheapest and most reliable in the world, attracting investment, jobs and advancing technology.
Now, it is a costly mess because of government acceptance of green propaganda that was never properly costed by those who instituted it. This can be seen as a demonstration of gross incompetence by decision makers unqualified for their positions.
As yet, there is no sign of change to the lemming-like rush to more economic harm. Who knows what the national grid will look like in 5 years from now?
Geoff S
Geoff (thanks for your knowledgeable contributions)
“rooftop solar providing more than half of electrical generation for several hours a day.”
This is likely to change with the current subsidies for home battery storage. My current feed-in will be curtailed shortly as I am about to have a subsidised battery installed. Many others will take this up so the grid will suffer another shock which needs further change to compensate.
Governments should learn the military saying that “No plan survives contact with the enemy” (we, the hoi polloi, being the ‘enemy’ in this instance)
Absolutely, it (the public grid) should just be separate from AI’s power needs and thereby influence.
The solution is easier. Currently training models is heavily energy intensive but a switch to an analog architecture for training would reduce energy requirement substantially. There are already options being developed…
I agree! Especially dedicated nuclear that can be committed to and paid for by users. Especially capabilities that recycle the source of the power. But- the development of these facilities is horrifying slow and needs to be accelerated. Also, don’t forget that natural gas dedicated power generators could be utilized as well! Let’s get on it!
In the Pacific NW server farms are sucking Bonneville Power dry. Residential rates have doubled over the last four years. The irony (if you want to call it that) is that the server farmers (Google, Facebook, MS, etc) have been the loudest voices for Climate Alarmism and unreliable generation.
Bonneville is (was) mainly hydro power on the Columbia River. Now they do windmills that chop bald eagles. My power bill includes charges to tear down power dams (no bull shark). The AI monsters now demand all the electricity. We’re heading for brown outs. People here are all buying back-up generators (gas, diesel, propane). Monopolies rule, the sheeple get eaten.
I have not followed Bonneville Power much. Have they been building reliable generation capacity?
That is required for serving increasing demand. Their wind generation is just toys.
The sucking dry narrative seems silly.
Demand in the region has been growing from population growth and all types of customers. The utility should have been adding generation.
Are you suggesting that the region should stop growth and progress?
Sounds a bit overblown to me (central WA State). More info w/links would help.
But if you notice, climate alarmism is being defunded. Is rise of AI the cause of the decline in the green monster?
Take a look at this public meeting presentation given by Rick Dunn, General Manager and CEO of the Benton PUD in October of 2025. I attended one of his public meetings after work before leaving town for the Old Homestead.
Pacific Northwest Hydropower: Why Every Drop Matters
By law in Washington state, public utilities and their customers get priority access to power over data centers.
However, even if competition from data centers wasn’t a problem, other developing issues have pushed the Pacific Northwest region to the brink of blackouts, as is discussed in Mr. Dunn’s presentation.
At the conclusion of the presentation, I pointed out that the Western Interconnection includes 37 areas of load balancing authority, of which the BPA is only one. Note that the BPA is a power transmission & marketing organization, it does not itself generate the power it transmits and markets.
The Western Interconnection is managed by the Western Electricity Coordination Council (WECC). The WECC will be implementing a rule which requires that any area of load balancing authority must supply any excess generation capacity it has available at any instant in real time to any other areas of load balancing authority which have a deficit.
I stated my own opinion that the entire Western Interconnection is at risk of blackouts; and that before the decade is out, we will be seeing the Interconnection become what is effectively one very gigantic area of load balancing authority, for all practical purposes.
As I predicted just a few months ago.
No matter how bad the energy supply will be as result of going green,
the MiC and Big Tech will always get the energy they want and need.
I have not studied the matter in detail , but this narrative seems like nonsense to me.
Back in the olden days, I was taught that an electric utility needed to build capacity of 115% of peak load demand to be reliable and that average output is much lower. The capital cost of generation capacity is a major part of customer pricing. A utility has to be able to charge for the cost of building for peaks.
It seems to me that large customers with steady demand would provide better return on capital and lower customer rates.
Of course the generating capacity has to be built.
Is it possible, that the recent decline in the green movement is related to this? That the high tech sponsors of all the green mess discovered they’re harming themselves and need to stop the harm.
“…advocates flaunt the promise of more jobs …” more jobs, just like outsourcing promised, but we ended up giving the phone help to other countries that we can’t understand. To put it bluntly, they’re liars. And they know it.
“they’re liars”.
Then identify, investigate, charge and punish.
Wherever it happens, telling lies has no place in public administrations.
Geoff S
“…. As Trump dismantles parts of their climate agenda.”
It is likely that such climate agenda, based on propaganda and poor standards of science and economics, carries the seeds of its own destruction. There is no need to blame others, except for yet more propaganda. Geoff S
We are dealing with two separate but related issues here. One is the power requirements of big tech the other is the inadequacy of wind and solar. Wind and solar can’t support the grid or our modern society plus they endanger the grid. Stop building them and remove them from the grid, this is not hard. Next big tech is going to require a lot of energy, we know that. Our energy system is regulated for a reason, to insure everyone has the energy they need at an affordable price. We are not going to cut granny’s power so big tech can make another buck. The solution is to fire up all fossil fuel and nuclear generators and build new fossil fuel and nuclear generators. The last thing we want to do is put a laser focus on AI to the exclusion of everything else. You know like we did with saving the planet from catastrophic runaway global warming. We have people who decide who can connect to the grid otherwise renewables wouldn’t have preferred access. Those who have contributed most to developing a safe, affordable and 24/7 supply will be first in line. It is the everyday guy, the small business man, manufacturers and industry big and small who have gotten us to where we are, they will not be pushed aside after doing all the heavy lifting up till now. We need more power generation, big tech is one of the primary reasons, they have deep pockets, they will share in the cost of building more generators or do without.
Challenge the assumptions.
Assumption: AI presentations are accurate, comprehensive, and unbiased.
Assumption: AI leads to innovation.
Anyone who went through the PC computer revolution in the 70s and 80s might recognize the rhetoric.
Assumption: Data centralization (i.e., cloud storage) is a good thing.
Major data security concerns.
Recall nearly 1/3rd of the internet went down due to cloud storage issues (Amazon).
Challenge the assumptions.
If data centers use all of the power, who will use the data centers? The rest of the world will need enough power just to maintain society, and only after that enough additional power to run all of the computers. If there isn’t enough power to maintain society, no one will be able to use a data center. It sounds like a self-defeating business model to me.