Precisely this. Incredibly annoying headline
> "concluded that expected power demand from data centers was _a_ primary reason for $23 billion in customer price increases "
Also, it's weird that he describes PJM as "the organization that monitors the PJM market" when they describe themselves as "a regional transmission organization (RTO) that coordinates the movement of wholesale electricity" [0]. So are they monitors of the market or are they the market themselves?
I don't know... maybe I'm being picky, but the article just seems off. The whole bit about how data centers could maybe game the system by using less power during peak times also doesn't make sense - that's when they also have the highest demand. Pointing to cryptominers just makes me think he doesn't get what they do, which is basically arbitrage. Of course they stop when power costs go up, it eats up all of their profits and they can simply start back up when the costs go down.
You also had the de-industrialization of the US happening at the same time, which also took pressure off the transmission grid.
We basically had a few things offset population growth to allow us to use our grandparents electric grid investments for far beyond their expected lifetime. We’ve finally just caught up after a free ride over the past 4-5 decades.
I overall agree with you strongly, just surprised that more efficient lighting would have that much impact on grid demand.
I will note- the actual generation is left to market economics. I have much more faith in that working out equitably than regulating the grid. Even so, they've had significant consumer level grod connection fee increases- which I think reflects the end of various easy houshold effeciency gains (eg: incandecent -> CFL -> LED, P4 -> 14th gen, and HVAC. mainly lighting) and privatized profits more than anything.
A data center can easily outbid them on the electricity market and drive prices through the roof for a few years, but also is free to simply turn off if it doesn't like the rates.