There's some speculation in the comments about what is or isn't in the pledge. I recommend reading it yourself.
[0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2026/03/ratepayer-protec...
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/03/rate...
> IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourth day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-six, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and fiftieth.
One can do the former whilst repudiating the latter and remain logically consistent.
We just approved the first nuclear plant in 20 years to a company owned by Bill Gates and in a state that has basically nothing but farmland and a Microsoft datacenter.
This absolutely cannot backfire. /s
Tech companies are exceedingly good at giving things away for free to get all the "market share" and then monetizing.
The threat is: This "datacenter power" disincentives buildout of "free" powerplants (by eating up significant demand at very low margins thanks to basically vertical integration); this slows down buildout of "normal" infrastructure (possibly both grid connectivity and power), and the electrical energy market becomes worse for consumers than it is now.
I personally think all of this is very speculative for now, but allowing industry to rely on the grid (which they still would!) while almost exclusively "buying" their own power is a risky proposition from a consumer perspective.
Interconnection expenses.
Same issues as with mining and large industrial clients generally.
In a different world they would have earned trust and deserve the benefit of the doubt. This is not that world.
In short, I'm very much in favor of building the right solution to a problem.
I am unsure what cognitively triggered an unhealthy response of "this is NIMBYism!" and would welcome a follow up comment to understand your train of thought.