Hacker News Reader

> If you just charged equivalent access (if industrial users had to pay to-the-penny exactly the same prices as a residential user, identical transmission fees, identical per-kwh prices, identical time-of-day usage surcharges, etc), it would go a long way to making the data center setup more fair for everyone.

Why? An industrial feed to a data centre is the company dealing with a single customer contact, to a single location, probably bulk-buying up front. That's very different to serving 500 houses with very variable demand.

Most data centers almost certainly pay property taxes, as well. It is still a deeded plot of land, after all? I'm curious what data center you know of that doesn't have to pay any. I know incentives are common, but they are usually tied to some other growth metric.

> I know incentives are common

I'd go further than common, I don't know any major data center built in the last 6 years that didn't get them. 36 out of 50 US states give away public money to privately owned data centers right now (see https://www.naiop.org/research-and-publications/magazine/202... )

It's not always property taxes (sales tax and/or use tax and/or waived utilities costs are also common). But property taxes are also waived in various cases.

> Most data centers almost certainly pay property taxes, as well. It is still a deeded plot of land, after all?

Not always -- they often waive property taxes too.

I'm told Nevada, West Virginia, and Wyoming all have waivers on property taxes for data centers specifically, and at least 12 other states (including Illinois, New York, Texas, and many others) also waive property taxes for data centers through indirect means.

Locally here, data centers get to skip out on paying 100% of their property taxes for 10 to 20 years. They do this by getting a county to label their property as a 'Renaissance Zone' (more commonly known as an 'Enterprise Zone').

Rules for that also vary. As one example, Connecticut has 'Enterprise Zone' distinction as well, but theirs is only an 80% tax abatement, and only for 5 years.

As you might imagine, this quickly becomes a race to the bottom, on which state is willing to give away the highest amount of public money to these private companies. See https://goodjobsfirst.org/enterprise-zones/ for more details.

I don't know if I can get behind rhetoric like "further than common." It is just common. Period. And you can be opposed to it, just on principle. It would help me oppose if you showed places that were not seeing benefits.

I'm reminded of places like Alabama that would do massive incentives to Mercedes to build a production plant in the state. Again, I know many that opposed on principle, but they were a touch off balance when it came to the benefits that the state was getting from the plants.

And I agree it can be a bit of a race to the bottom, as it were. As things are, there is little to no evidence that that is the case. Building any large industrial building is a large construction project that alone will generate plenty of tax revenue to justify pushing off many taxes. Would it be even better for the localities to not? Yeah, but only if they could still get the build.

doesn't really match what I'm seeing in Chelan County, WA... the county is now in a fight with the port because the port wants to create a Tax Increment Area to capture the taxes from the two data center buildouts... ~$100m over 25 years. they also estimate $150m sales tax revenue and $70m in property tax revenue for those data centers. one relevant stat is that Microsoft will become the biggest taxpayer in the county.

This is wrong, the data center supply chain is very large with hundreds of thousands of components all generating tax.

How much of that tax goes to the city or county that the data center is in?

A recurring use of energy generates tax.

They're getting that rate because of the reduced cost to support their connection to the grid per kWh. It's essentially the cost of the "packaging". If this is resulting in a loss of revenue for the utility, the blame for that falls on the utility for not properly measuring costs.

Is that also factoring in demand charges? I find this gets forgotten in a lot of discussion of industrial rates, when it is often a large factor in the effective $/kwh.