4 ms·
You can read the actual pledge at [0]. The executive order regarding it is at [1]. There's some speculation in the comments about what is or isn't in the pledg
by miyoji 8mo ago
You can read the actual pledge at [0]. The executive order regarding it is at [1].
There's some speculation in the comments about what is or isn't in the pledge. I recommend reading it yourself.
[0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2026/03/ratepayer-protection-pledge/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2026/03/ratepayer-protec...
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/03/ratepayer-protection-pledge-proclamation/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/03/rate...
- AdieuToLogic 8mo agoIt is important to remember that clarifying the legal implications of "pledge" is entirely different than supporting and/or defending this instance of its usage. One can do the former whilst repudiating the latter and remain logically consistent.
- trinsic2 8mo agoI'm not understanding why clarifying the legal implications is important if it's a smoke screen for everyone involved doing what they are going to do anyway. It seems more like a distraction away from the real problems.
- dsl 8mo agoIt all seems like a backdoor to let tech companies build power generation on site without all the red tape and sell the excess power to consumers. This indirectly allows them to offload some of the fixed operational costs onto consumers. We just approved the first nuclear plant in 20 years to a company owned by Bill Gates and in a state that has basically nothing but farmland and a Microsoft datacenter. This absolutely cannot backfire. /s
- simianwords 8mo agoWhat’s wrong with this?
- ipaddr 8mo agoPrice of power goes up and the local people are not connected to the benefits. You might think they will receive a lot of money in taxes but you would be wrong because they have tax breaks.
- sparky_z 8mo agoWhy would adding a new supplier to the market cause the price of power to go up?
- myrmidon 8mo agoBecause on-site powerplants owned by datacenter operators are not "just another supplier". The threat is: This "datacenter power" disincentives buildout of "free" powerplants (by eating up significant demand at very low margins thanks to basically vertical integration); this slows down buildout of "normal" infrastructure (possibly both grid connectivity and power), and the electrical energy market becomes worse for consumers than it is now. I personally think all of this is very speculative for now, but allowing industry to rely on the grid (which they still would!) while almost exclusively "buying" their own power is a risky proposition from a consumer perspective.
- soulofmischief 8mo agoNot to mention the danger of energy production, even nuclear, becoming resource-constrained to the point where datacenter power plants leave no room for municipal plants. We're seeing it happen with consumer hardware; make no mistake on who will get preference.
- PunchyHamster 8mo agoI'm sure power plant building companies won't say no to more business
- tomrod 8mo agoGrid overload if they produce too much base load. Interconnection expenses. Same issues as with mining and large industrial clients generally.
- terminalshort 8mo agoGood. I want more power plants built, especially ones that don't emit CO2.
- mike_d 8mo agoYou seem to be missing the point that they should be public utilities. Tech companies are exceedingly good at giving things away for free to get all the "market share" and then monetizing.
- soared 8mo agoThis sounds really cool and all governmenty > IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourth day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-six, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and fiftieth.
- trinsic2 8mo agoWhat is the point of reading it? Pledges mean nothing.