4 ms·

Microsoft ran heaters at Quincy to avoid a contractual obligation. They could run ASICs. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/technology/data-centers-in-rural-was

by RyJones 12y ago

Microsoft ran heaters at Quincy to avoid a contractual obligation. They could run ASICs. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/technology/data-centers-in-rural-washington-state-gobble-power.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/technology/data-centers-in... Then came a showdown late last year between the utility and Microsoft, whose hardball tactics shocked some local officials. In an attempt to erase a $210,000 penalty the utility said the company owed for overestimating its power use, Microsoft proceeded to simply waste millions of watts of electricity, records show.

bsder 12y ago
Use quotes, please. Those aren't your own words. And, the utility put Microsoft in the position of wasting $70,000 of power or paying a $210,000 fine. Exactly what did they EXPECT was going to happen? As much as I like to slag Microsoft, any rational human being is going to react that way when presented with those incentives.
juliangregorian 12y ago
That article is pretty damning of the power company, not Microsoft. They issued a fine for not using as much electricity as they estimated, what's the logic there? And then the "utility commissioner" (unclear if he works for the utility itself or not) has the gall to blast them for "not being green"? Plus they are trying to paint the narrative as a "megacorp vs aw-shucks local farmers" that just rings hollow in light of the company's exorbitant fine.
- eigenvector 12y ago
  The reason why this is done is because major industrial customers (e.g. data centers) often require upgrades to utility-owned infrastructure when they set up shop. Utilities will typically require what they call a 3rd party capital contribution (i.e. upfront cash payment) for some portion of the total cost, with the remainder to be recovered via their margin on the additional electricity consumed over the lifetime of the facility. You would also have the option of paying the full cost and making no commitment as to whether you'd actually use it. If a customer moves in and says "oh yeah, I'm gonna need an average of 100 MW 24/7 for the next 20 years" and then turns out to only use half that, the utility is now short a bunch of a money that it spent upgrading its distribution infrastructure for that customer's supposed needs.
  - juliangregorian 12y ago
    Yeah, that's fine if you had a contract committing to a certain minimum, but any ideas how they are justifying asking for 3x the difference though?

by RyJones 12y ago

bsder 12y ago

Use quotes, please. Those aren't your own words. And, the utility put Microsoft in the position of wasting $70,000 of power or paying a $210,000 fine. Exactly what did they EXPECT was going to happen? As much as I like to slag Microsoft, any rational human being is going to react that way when presented with those incentives.

juliangregorian 12y ago

That article is pretty damning of the power company, not Microsoft. They issued a fine for not using as much electricity as they estimated, what's the logic there? And then the "utility commissioner" (unclear if he works for the utility itself or not) has the gall to blast them for "not being green"? Plus they are trying to paint the narrative as a "megacorp vs aw-shucks local farmers" that just rings hollow in light of the company's exorbitant fine.

eigenvector 12y ago
The reason why this is done is because major industrial customers (e.g. data centers) often require upgrades to utility-owned infrastructure when they set up shop. Utilities will typically require what they call a 3rd party capital contribution (i.e. upfront cash payment) for some portion of the total cost, with the remainder to be recovered via their margin on the additional electricity consumed over the lifetime of the facility. You would also have the option of paying the full cost and making no commitment as to whether you'd actually use it. If a customer moves in and says "oh yeah, I'm gonna need an average of 100 MW 24/7 for the next 20 years" and then turns out to only use half that, the utility is now short a bunch of a money that it spent upgrading its distribution infrastructure for that customer's supposed needs.
- juliangregorian 12y ago
  Yeah, that's fine if you had a contract committing to a certain minimum, but any ideas how they are justifying asking for 3x the difference though?