Rendered at 22:18:33 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
ethagknight 3 hours ago [-]
Some obvious wordsmithing here intended to confuse. These are very weak arguments and I do not understand why it is a material concern to a Congressman other than an interest to interfere in US commerce on behalf of foreign entities. Why is Warren so concerned with a non-federal utility co's market rate agreements, or tax breaks granted by local governments? Its not at all her jurisdiction.
1- Fair Share payments- its a net benefit to all ratepayers if the system is upgraded thanks to expanded revenue from datacenters. Utility operators not correctly charging for services provided is a separate matter. Its reasonable to assume that Warren is getting into nitpicking on "wait who paid for THAT transformer??" Its very possible that some of these utilities are making mistakes, but they have their own board of directors and local oversight to address that matter.
2- NDAs- this was a big talking point in Memphis recently "I want to see the NDAs!!" but we have a utility co MLGW that is pretty effective and has to look out for its own long term interests. Warren has no business demanding to regulate that sort of deal making, unless of course the utility leadership is engage in corruption. Otherwise, its just business as usual that any other business engages in in the United State.
3- Tax Breaks- datacenters have such high price F&E tax related price tags that the laws weren't really written to consider a facility with $100B of value installed. A tax break is reasonable, and it is only "lots govt revenue stolen from schools" or whatever if the government is writing a check back out to the datacenter operation, which they generally are not to my knowledge. A tax that didn't exist yesterday and gets negotiated down for tomorrow is not "lost tax revenue" but an acknowledgment that the tax code, as written, is overly punitive to commerce, which I believe is Warren's goal, on behalf of foreign actors, to throttle US enterprise and dominance in intelligence.
MathMonkeyMan 3 hours ago [-]
> Some obvious wordsmithing here intended to confuse. These are very weak arguments and I do not understand why it is a material concern to a Congressman
Interested to hear more!
> other than an interest to interfere in US commerce on behalf of foreign entities.
No longer interested!
The article does beat around the bush and the headline is clickbait. I assumed from the title that these datacenters were not paying their bills, but instead it's about the extent to which the operators should pay for public infrastructure built due to the datacenter being built. That's an interesting question, but I don't like the goalpost begin moved from "not paying their full costs" to "not paying what I define as a 'fair share'."
iAMkenough 3 hours ago [-]
> I believe is Warren's goal, on behalf of foreign actors, to throttle US enterprise and dominance in intelligence.
Which foreign actors do you believe are setting Warren's alleged goal? Sounds like hearsay without a money trail backing it up, given Warren's record of supporting education funding and opportunities for her constituents.
cavemandaveman 3 hours ago [-]
Yeah the statement you quoted goes too far. My impression is that Warren and people aligned with her are reflexively anti-business and by extension anti-AI but I don't buy that she's on the payroll of any foreign adversary.
pylua 2 hours ago [-]
I usually do not agree with her but I do here. There is a lot of nervousness where I live that the power rates will rise to support the build out in infra for data centers.
After working in tech I know they really are only in it to maximize profit at any expense necessary, and I personally do not trust them.
If you want buid out data centers fine, but build brand new infrastructure and supply your own water and waste management to not harm the existing community.
These companies are making billions and should be able to do this.
1- Fair Share payments- its a net benefit to all ratepayers if the system is upgraded thanks to expanded revenue from datacenters. Utility operators not correctly charging for services provided is a separate matter. Its reasonable to assume that Warren is getting into nitpicking on "wait who paid for THAT transformer??" Its very possible that some of these utilities are making mistakes, but they have their own board of directors and local oversight to address that matter.
2- NDAs- this was a big talking point in Memphis recently "I want to see the NDAs!!" but we have a utility co MLGW that is pretty effective and has to look out for its own long term interests. Warren has no business demanding to regulate that sort of deal making, unless of course the utility leadership is engage in corruption. Otherwise, its just business as usual that any other business engages in in the United State.
3- Tax Breaks- datacenters have such high price F&E tax related price tags that the laws weren't really written to consider a facility with $100B of value installed. A tax break is reasonable, and it is only "lots govt revenue stolen from schools" or whatever if the government is writing a check back out to the datacenter operation, which they generally are not to my knowledge. A tax that didn't exist yesterday and gets negotiated down for tomorrow is not "lost tax revenue" but an acknowledgment that the tax code, as written, is overly punitive to commerce, which I believe is Warren's goal, on behalf of foreign actors, to throttle US enterprise and dominance in intelligence.
Interested to hear more!
> other than an interest to interfere in US commerce on behalf of foreign entities.
No longer interested!
The article does beat around the bush and the headline is clickbait. I assumed from the title that these datacenters were not paying their bills, but instead it's about the extent to which the operators should pay for public infrastructure built due to the datacenter being built. That's an interesting question, but I don't like the goalpost begin moved from "not paying their full costs" to "not paying what I define as a 'fair share'."
Which foreign actors do you believe are setting Warren's alleged goal? Sounds like hearsay without a money trail backing it up, given Warren's record of supporting education funding and opportunities for her constituents.
After working in tech I know they really are only in it to maximize profit at any expense necessary, and I personally do not trust them.
If you want buid out data centers fine, but build brand new infrastructure and supply your own water and waste management to not harm the existing community.
These companies are making billions and should be able to do this.