The nation is awash in data center hate and California is no exception.<\/p>\n
Temporary bans have cropped up across the state as residents from Imperial County<\/a> to San Jos\u00e9<\/a> fight proposals in their communities. Monterey Park became the first city in the country earlier this month to permanently ban data centers<\/a> by a popular vote. And a recent poll sponsored by the environmental group Net-Zero California showed 70% of state residents<\/a> don\u2019t want data centers in their communities.<\/p>\n But unlike in Virginia, Texas, Ohio and other states where residents are fighting 400-plus megawatt hyperscaler facilities in their backyards, California has some major barriers keeping data centers at bay. <\/p>\n Sky high industrial electricity prices are more than double the national average.<\/a> Long wait times to connect to the grid have some new data centers sitting empty<\/a> in Silicon Valley. And the state regulates the size of the backup generators that keep the centers running when the grid goes down. That has limited most facilities to a fraction of the size that artificial intelligence increasingly demands. <\/p>\n That all means that California is seeing less of a boom \u2014 fewer proposed data centers, and smaller in size \u2014 than in the country\u2019s hot spots. <\/p>\n \u201cCalifornia isn\u2019t even on the map today,\u201d said Mehdi Paryavi, chairman of the International Data Center Authority. \u201cTaxes are high, land is expensive, water is scarce, energy is difficult to find, communities are pushing back. There are all kinds of problems.\u201d<\/p>\n Northern California and Southern California were hubs for an earlier generation of data centers. \u201cBut over time, as the sector has grown, the overwhelming majority has been developed elsewhere,\u201d said Andrew Batson, head of data center research at real estate intelligence firm JLL. <\/p>\n \u201cAlmost all the data center demand being generated from California is being serviced by adjacent states,\u201d from places such as Phoenix and Las Vegas, Batson said, \u201cwhere power is much cheaper, land is more affordable, and regulations are quite less.\u201d <\/p>\n Still, \u201cCalifornia can\u2019t outsource all it\u2019s data center capacity,\u201d and the state expects to see growth over the coming years.<\/p>\n Fifty-one facilities are currently planned in the state, according to a recent study from the Pew Research Center,<\/a> an 18% increase over the 277 operating today. According to a study from UC Riverside<\/a>, data center electricity use in the state doubled between 2019 and 2023.<\/p>\n But some grid operators elsewhere are already seeing overwhelming loads, such as the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland Interconnection that expects about 40% to be added to its total demand,<\/a> largely from data centers, by 2035. Compare that to the California Energy Commission which expects data centers to drive an increase of about 2 gigawatts by 2030<\/a>, and 5 GW by 2040. That\u2019s about 4 and 9% of its 52 GW peak load<\/a> respectively. <\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s a significant amount of demand growth, but it\u2019s not dwarfing all the other factors,\u201d said Mark Specht, a senior energy manager at the Union of Concerned Scientists who put out a report<\/a> on California data center growth last month. \u201cSome of the projections we\u2019re seeing for increased electricity demand from electric vehicles in 2045 is actually higher than the demand from data centers.\u201d <\/p>\n California regulations are part of what\u2019s keeping data centers relatively small: A state rule requires any backup generator bigger than 100 megawatts to be certified as a power plant. <\/p>\n Specht\u2019s report found none of the current data centers in California and almost none of the proposed ones require that certification because they fall under the 100 MW cap. (Exceptions include a 417 MW planned facility<\/a> in Santa Clara and a 330 MW one in Imperial County blocked Tuesday<\/a> by a moratorium vote.) <\/p>\n One hundred MW could power a small city\u2019s peak demand, yet the average U.S. data center is expected to demand over 600 MW by 2030, according to the energy intelligence company Cleanview.<\/a> <\/p>\n A San Francisco Chronicle analysis<\/a> showed that California facilities currently make up about 5% of national data center power demand, but that share is expected to fall to 1% if building proceeds as planned across the country. <\/p>\n Still, the growth that does exist is raising concerns among utility ratepayer advocates and environmentalists, not to mention the general public.<\/p>\n \u201cThere are real costs at stake,\u201d said Mark Toney executive director at The Utility Reform Network, a ratepayer advocacy group. <\/p>\n He noted Pacific Gas & Electric anticipates a massive amount of new demand from data centers \u2014 about 10 GW worth<\/a> \u2014 or enough to power 7.5 million homes. That would require grid upgrades he estimates at about $10 billion, partly borne by ratepayers. Interest has been high in PG&E territory because it serves the San Francisco Bay area, where California\u2019s projected data center buildout is concentrated around San Jose, now that Santa Clara has reached capacity<\/a>. <\/p>\n Data center electricity projections come with uncertainty, and PG&E says its confirmed large load in the pipeline \u2014 mostly data centers \u2014 is closer to 5.3 GW. <\/p>\n Whatever demand materializes, TURN and others are fighting to shield ratepayers from the costs of PG&E\u2019s buildout, a battle playing out at the Public Utilities Commission. <\/p>\n PG&E spokesperson Rob Stillwell said data centers help reduce rates by spreading the costs of grid maintenance over more customers. He noted data centers already have to pay the up front costs of connecting to the grid, under a temporary rule.<\/p>\n But TURN says those don\u2019t include all of the infrastructure and broader grid updates that PG&E will have to invest in to support data centers. <\/p>\n And the rule only applies for PG&E territory and doesn\u2019t require data centers to bring their own clean power. <\/p>\n TURN is now backing a bill from State Sen. Steve Padilla (D-Chula Vista) that would require all data centers to pay for 100% of the costs of new transmission upgrades as well as new clean energy to cover at least half their required electricity. The industry is opposing the effort. <\/p>\n Another Padilla bill would approve data centers faster if they use more clean energy. One from Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), would require data centers to disclose their energy use<\/a> to the state. And bills by Assemblymember Diane Papan (D-San Mateo) would require them to project and report their water use as part of permitting and licensing.<\/p>\n Yet politicians have been hesitant to regulate. Last year, similar bills were either watered down, didn\u2019t make it through the legislature<\/a> or were vetoed<\/a> by Gov. Gavin Newsom. <\/p>\n At a panel in January, gubernatorial candidates were asked how they would balance environmental concerns about data centers with their potential to drive economic activity.<\/p>\n \u201cWe have to make sure that those data centers are paying their fair share,\u201d said Xavier Becerra, adding that businesses need to move away from diesel backup generators.<\/p>\n Former candidate Tom Steyer of San Francisco answered with a dodge or a dose of realism, depending on your view.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat data centers are looking for is cost to compute and speed to compute, and the good news is that California\u2019s energy is so expensive on a cost basis, they\u2019ll never come here,\u201d Steyer said. \u201cWe may talk all we want about data centers, but they\u2019re not coming.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The nation is awash in data center hate and California is no exception. Temporary bans have cropped up…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":371354,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[150491,3653,7,9,8,7363,4442,150486,150490,40110,12925,150489,150487,150488,288,225,60931],"class_list":["post-371353","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-california","tag-backup-generator","tag-bill","tag-california","tag-california-headlines","tag-california-news","tag-country","tag-data-center","tag-datum-center-hate","tag-demand-growth","tag-grid","tag-imperial-county","tag-mw-cap","tag-pge-territory","tag-real-cost","tag-resident","tag-state","tag-turn"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/371353","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=371353"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/371353\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/371354"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=371353"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=371353"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=371353"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}