> Something similar should be levied against large single point of use customers like this.
Already exists and has for decades.
All the "rules" (literal laws in some cases) for how the cost is borne for grid upgrade costs are a complex web.
There's half a dozen different ways you "apply" to connect a large load or generation to the grid. They all come with different rules that make or break things. And all this has multi-year timelines.
Source: Trying to get someone else to develop solar on my property
If you have a pro sports team in your region, then you have mindshare among a significant chunk of the American public for months out of the year through broadcasts, blogs, articles, and now sports books. If you are, oh, I don't know, Kansas City, it might get you mindshare you wouldn't have otherwise. It's hard to put a price tag on mindshare, so cities think that it's worth it.
If you have a data center, you have... a data center. I don't think "jeeze, I need to go up 29 or 35 to Iowa soon" each time I spin up a new GCP project in us-central1.
Ultimately a lot of states - particularly in the middle of the country - have political power that is held by rural interests, regardless of whether that's where most of the population lives in that state. Missouri is an example of this: two major progressive-leaning cities and two mid-sized college towns that puts about 60-70% of the population as urban, but very rural/conservative state government. That state government is made of people who don't grasp what the hell a data center is, how it's run, and what it brings to the local economy. They think it's a slice of Silicon Valley, but it's not (and honestly, thank God for that), and it won't bring that sort of employment, but they can't suss that out.
Because they can make the rest of us pay for it and historically there's been little pushback against that. That's changing, but that's why they shove it off on the rest of us.
Socialize costs, privatize gains. If they didn't try to make someone else pay for it, some activist shareholder might attempt to make them try it. Then all of the other players in the space copy the same playbook and now it's practically mandated that if you want to compete in the data center development market, you must make someone else pay for the electricity, lest the returns on such an investment lag behind those who do.
Here's an example where the benefit is obvious:
Say I set up a desalination plant for a city with water shortages. I use a lot of electricity; this drives up electricity prices. But I also sell the more scarce water, lowering the price of water. If I make more selling the water, then to first order I'm helping people overall- they value the water more than the electricity. Perhaps I put other, less efficient desalination plants out of use, or simply other uses of electricity that people value less than the water I provide.
No, people who live in geography absolutely should not control the land surrounding them. That's effectively land hoarding, and incentivizes deeply counterproductive NIMBYism. People should primarily control the land they own.
Because utilities are regulated monopolies that exist to benefit society. The companies building data-centers are well aware that the system isn't setup to handle a customer that suddenly doubles or triples the electric demand of a whole town over night. They are taking advantage of that until someone steps in.
Perhaps we should eliminate the utilities guaranteed monopoly then! Monopolies are usually dysfunctional.
The market isn't some magic tool to get optimal results. It's a way for capital to self-reproduce, not more, not less.
and yet I have a hard time believing they value the electricity less than the AI.
Let them drink tokens!