InvestMacro

By Ari Peskoe, Harvard University and Eliza Martin, Harvard University 

In the race to develop artificial intelligence, large technology companies such as Google and Meta are trying to secure massive amounts of electricity to power new data centers. Electric utilities see the prospect of earning large profits by providing electricity to these power-hungry facilities and are competing for their business by offering discounts not available to average consumers.

In our paper Extracting Profits from the Public, we explain how utilities are forcing regular ratepayers to pay for the discounts enjoyed by some of the nation’s largest companies and identify ways policymakers can limit the costs to the public.

Shifting costs

In much of the U.S., utilities are monopolists. Within their service territories, they are the only companies allowed to deliver electricity to consumers. To fund their operations, utilities split the costs of maintaining and expanding their systems among all ratepayers – homeowners, businesses, warehouses, factories and anyone else who uses electricity.

Historically, a utility expanded its system to meet growing demand for electricity from new factories, businesses and homes. To pay for its expansion − new power plants, new transmission lines and other equipment − the utility would propose to raise electricity rates by different amounts for various types of consumers.

Public utility commissions are state agencies charged with ensuring that the public gets a fair deal. These commissions monitor how much money the utility spends to provide electric service and how its costs are shared among various types of ratepayers, including residential, commercial and industrial consumers. Ultimately, the public utility commission is supposed to approve any rate increases based on its assessment of what’s fair to consumers.

Splitting the utility’s costs among all consumers made perfect sense when population growth and economic development across the economy stimulated the need for new infrastructure. But today, in many utility service territories, most of the projected growth in electricity demand is due to new data centers.

Here’s the problem for consumers: To meet data center demand, utilities are building new power plants and power lines that are needed only because of data center growth. If state regulators allow utilities to follow the standard approach of splitting the costs of new infrastructure among all consumers, the public will end up paying to supply data centers with all that power.

A big price tag

One particularly acute example is in Louisiana. A Meta data center under development in the northeastern corner of the state is projected to use, by our calculations, twice as much energy as the city of New Orleans.

Entergy, the regional monopoly utility, is proposing to build more than US$3 billion worth of new gas-fired power plants and delivery infrastructure to meet the data center’s energy demand. Rather than billing Meta directly for these costs, Entergy is proposing to include the costs in rates paid by all customers.

Entergy claims its contract with Meta will cover some portion of the $3 billion price tag and that will mitigate any increases in consumers’ bills. But Entergy has asked state regulators to keep key terms of the contract secret, and only a redacted version of its application is available online.

The public has no idea how much it might pay if the commission approves the contract. And if the Meta data center ends up using much less power than the company anticipates, the public does not know whether it would be on the hook to pay higher electricity rates for longer periods to guarantee Entergy a profit.

Secret agreements

Our research, reviewing nearly 50 public utility commission proceedings about data centers’ power needs across 10 states, uncovered dozens of secretive contracts between utilities and data centers. Unlike Louisiana, most states require utilities to submit to the public utility commission their one-off deals with data centers, but they allow utilities to conceal the pricing terms from the public.

In normal rate-review cases, numerous parties advocate for their interests in a public proceeding, including members of the public, industry groups and the utility itself. But as our paper finds, utility commission reviews of data center contracts are based on confidential utility filings that are inaccessible to the general public. Few, if any, outsiders participate, and as a result the commission often hears only the utility’s version of the deal.

Because the pricing terms are secret, it is impossible to know whether the deal that a utility is offering to a data center is too low to cover the utility’s costs of providing power to the data center, which would mean that the public is subsidizing the deal. History shows, however, that utilities have a long history of exploiting their monopolies to shift costs to the public, including through secret contracts.

Other public costs

Our paper also explores other ways that the public pays for data center energy costs. For instance, many high-voltage interstate transmission projects, which connect large power plants to local delivery systems, are developed through regional planning processes run by numerous utilities. These alliances have complex rules for splitting the costs of new transmission lines and equipment among their utility members.

Once a utility is charged its share, it spreads the costs of new transmission projects among its local ratepayers. Because some regions are building new transmission capacity to accommodate data centers, our analysis finds that the public has been forced to pay billions of dollars for data center growth.

Data center energy costs can also be shifted when data centers connect directly to existing power plants. Under what are called “co-location” deals, the power plant stops selling energy to the wider public and just sells to the data center. With less supply in the overall market, prices go up and the public faces higher bills as a result.

Many state legislatures are noticing these problems and working to figure out how to address them. Several recent bills would set new terms and conditions for future data center deals that could help protect the public from data center energy costs.

About the Author:

Ari Peskoe, Lecturer on Law, Harvard University and Eliza Martin, Legal Fellow, Environmental and Energy Law Program, Harvard University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

By Terence Musho, West Virginia University 

When the computer or phone you’re using right now blinks its last blink and you drop it off for recycling, do you know what happens?

At the recycling center, powerful magnets will pull out steel. Spinning drums will toss aluminum into bins. Copper wires will get neatly bundled up for resale. But as the conveyor belt keeps rolling, tiny specks of valuable, lesser-known materials such as gallium, indium and tantalum will be left behind.

Those tiny specks are critical materials. They’re essential for building new technology, and they’re in short supply in the U.S. They could be reused, but there’s a problem: Current recycling methods make recovering critical minerals from e-waste too costly or hazardous, so many recyclers simply skip them.

Sadly, most of these hard-to-recycle materials end up buried in landfills or get mixed into products like cement. But it doesn’t have to be this way. New technology is starting to make a difference.

As demand for these critical materials keeps growing, discarded electronics can become valuable resources. My colleagues and I at West Virginia University are developing a new technology to change how we recycle. Instead of using toxic chemicals, our approach uses electricity, making it safer, cleaner and more affordable to recover critical materials from electronics.

How much e-waste are we talking about?

Americans generated about 2.7 million tons of electronic waste in 2018, according to the latest federal data. Including uncounted electronics, a survey by the United Nations suggests that the U.S. recycles only about 15% of its total e-waste.

Even worse, nearly half the electronics that people in Northern America sent to recycling centers end up shipped overseas. They often land in scrapyards, where workers may use dangerous methods like burning or leaching using harsh chemicals to pull out valuable metals. These practices can harm both the environment and workers’ health. That’s why the Environmental Protection Agency restricts these methods in the U.S.

The tiny specks matter

Critical minerals are in most of the technology around you. Every phone screen has a super-thin layer of a material called indium tin oxide. LEDs glow because of a metal called gallium. Tantalum stores energy in tiny electronic parts called capacitors.

All of these materials are flagged as “high risk” on the U.S. Department of Energy’s critical materials list. That means the U.S. relies heavily on these materials for important technologies, but their supply could be easily disrupted by conflicts, trade disputes or shortages.

Right now, just a few countries, including China, control most of the mining, processing and recovery of these materials, making the U.S. vulnerable if those countries decide to limit exports or raise prices.

These materials aren’t cheap, either. For example, the U.S. Geological Survey reports that gallium was priced between US$220 to $500 per kilogram in 2024. That’s 50 times more expensive than common metals like copper, at $9.48 per kilogram in 2024.

Revolutionizing recycling with microwaves

At West Virginia University’s Department of Mechanical, Materials and Aerospace Engineering, I and materials scientist Edward Sabolsky asked a simple question: Could we find a way to heat only specific parts of electronic waste to recover these valuable materials?

If we could focus the heat on just the tiny specks of critical minerals, we might be able to recycle them easily and efficiently.

The solution we found: microwaves.

This equipment isn’t very different from the microwave ovens you use to heat food at home, just bigger and more powerful. The basic science is the same – electromagnetic waves cause electrons to oscillate, creating heat.

In our approach, though, we’re not heating water molecules like you do when cooking. Instead, we heat carbon, the black residue that collects around a candle flame or car tailpipe. Carbon heats up much faster in a microwave than water does. But don’t try this at home; your kitchen microwave wasn’t designed for such high temperatures.

In our recycling method, we first shred the electronic waste, mix it with materials called fluxes that trap impurities, and then heat the mixture with microwaves. The microwaves rapidly heat the carbon that comes from the plastics and adhesives in the e-waste. This causes the carbon to react with the tiny specks of critical materials. The result: a tiny piece of pure, sponge-like metal about the size of a grain of rice.

This metal can then be easily separated from leftover waste using filters.

So far, in our laboratory tests, we have successfully recovered about 80% of the gallium, indium and tantalum from e-waste, at purities between 95% and 97%. We have also demonstrated how it can be integrated with existing recycling processes.

Why the Department of Defense is interested

Our recycling technology got its start with help from a program funded by the Defense Department’s Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA.

Many important technologies, from radar systems to nuclear reactors, depend on these special materials. While the Department of Defense uses less of them than the commercial market, they are a national security concern.

We’re planning to launch larger pilot projects next to test the method on smartphone circuit boards, LED lighting parts and server cards from data centers. These tests will help us fine-tune the design for a bigger system that can recycle tons of e-waste per hour instead of just a few pounds. That could mean producing up to 50 pounds of these critical minerals per hour from every ton of e-waste processed.

If the technology works as expected, we believe this approach could help meet the nation’s demand for critical materials.

How to make e-waste recycling common

One way e-waste recycling could become more common is if Congress held electronics companies responsible for recycling their products and recovering the critical materials inside. Closing loopholes that allow companies to ship e-waste overseas, instead of processing it safely in the U.S., could also help build a reserve of recovered critical minerals.

But the biggest change may come from simple economics. Once technology becomes available to recover these tiny but valuable specks of critical materials quickly and affordably, the U.S. can transform domestic recycling and take a big step toward solving its shortage of critical materials.

About the Author:

Terence Musho, Associate Professor of Engineering, West Virginia University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

By Mojtaba Akhavan-Tafti, University of Michigan 

U.S. consumer demand for renewable energy continues to grow, with more solar panel capacity installed in 2024 than in 2023, which saw more than in 2022. But U.S. trade policy is in flux, and high tariffs have been imposed on imported solar panels, which may cause shortages.

I am a scholar who studies the Sun, as well as an entrepreneur who is working to harness its power here on Earth by creating new designs for generating solar electricity. As part of that effort, I’ve studied market trends and manufacturing capabilities in the U.S. and abroad. Right now, U.S. manufacturers do not produce enough solar panels to meet the nation’s demand, but industry investments and federal tax incentives have been making progress, though recent federal moves have created uncertainty.

In 2024, U.S. installers put up enough solar panels to generate 50 gigawatts of electricity – enough to power New York City for a year.

U.S. manufacturers made only a small fraction of that – 4.2 GW of solar modules in the first half of 2024. That was a big boost, though – a 75% increase compared with the same period in 2023. And the prices were roughly three times the cost of imports.

A look at recent imports

In 2024, the U.S. imported far more panels than the country needed, suggesting developers may be stockpiling panels for future projects.

Most of those imported panels were made in Asia, particularly Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand. In fact, nearly all of the U.S.-made panels used at least some components from overseas. China currently makes about 97% of the world’s supply of photovoltaic wafers, which are building blocks of solar panels.

The effects of proposed U.S. trade policies on the solar industry remain unclear. Through 2024, manufacturing continued a yearslong ramp-up to take advantage of government policies favoring domestic manufacturing. And imported panels seem slated to suffer from ever-increasing tariffs, which drive up costs.

Domestic production rises

Since 2010, U.S. solar panel production has increased about eightfold. But U.S.-made panels are more expensive than imported alternatives. In 2024, U.S.-made panels typically cost 31 cents per watt, but imported panels, even including tariffs that existed before President Donald Trump’s second term, cost about one-third of that: 11 cents per watt.

But domestic manufacturers are bringing costs down by ramping up production while relying on the government to maintain or increase tariffs on imports, which may make U.S. panels more competitive domestically in the future.

Reliance on overseas sources

Despite that increase in domestic production, U.S. demand for solar panels has grown even faster. To meet demand, the U.S. imports a substantial portion of its solar photovoltaic modules.

Tariffs, including a 30% tariff on solar cells and solar panels starting in 2018, aimed to boost domestic manufacturing.

But those tariffs and falling global prices made solar installations more costly in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. The average global cost of installed solar systems dropped from $1.15 per watt in 2012 to $0.72 per watt in 2016, nearly half that of U.S. installations.

The 2018 tariffs, as well as earlier rounds in 2012 and 2014, have shifted the source of U.S. imports of solar panels – from China and Taiwan to Malaysia and South Korea. Manufacturers are also building solar panels in Singapore and Germany to maintain access to the U.S. market. And Chinese companies are even investing in U.S. solar manufacturers to take advantage of federal incentives and avoid tariffs.

New tariffs emerge

Trump’s proposal for new tariffs on foreign-made solar goods, including panels and components, particularly target Chinese-owned companies in Southeast Asia.

They could include a potential 375% tariff on Thai products – nearly quadrupling prices – and a 3,500% tariff on products from Cambodia.

In contrast, U.S.-made solar panels will be cheaper. But a reduced supply of solar panels will raise prices even of domestic-made panels, at least until U.S. manufacturing can catch up with the demand. Some developers have begun to delay or cancel solar installations to address rising costs.

Domestic investment

Due in large part to the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, enacted in 2022, the U.S. solar panel industry has seen significant investments.

Since the law’s enactment, more than 95 GW of manufacturing capability have been added across the solar supply chain in the U.S., including new facilities that in a year can construct enough solar panels to produce nearly 42 GW, beyond existing manufacturing levels. This growth in manufacturing capabilities is largely located in Texas and Georgia.

Still, the new administration’s shifting priorities and trade policies make the landscape uncertain. Before Trump began discussing various solar-related trade policies, the industry projected it would install an average of 45 GW of solar panels every year for the next decade.

About the Author:

Mojtaba Akhavan-Tafti, Associate Research Scientist, University of Michigan

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

By Erin Baker, UMass Amherst and Paola Pimentel Furlanetto, UMass Amherst 

The Trump administration is working to lift regulations on coal-fired power plants in the hopes of making its energy less expensive. But while cost is one important aspect, utilities have a lot more to consider when they choose their power sources.

Different technologies play different roles in the power system. Some sources, like nuclear energy, are reliable but inflexible. Other sources, like oil, are flexible but expensive and polluting.

How utilities choose which power source to invest in depends in large part on two key aspects: price and reliability.

Power prices

One way to compare power sources is by their levelized cost of electricity. This shows how much it costs to produce one unit of electricity on average over the life of the generator.

The asset management firm Lazard has produced levelized cost of electricity calculations for the major U.S. electricity sources annually for years, and it has tracked a sharp decline in solar power costs in particular.

Coal is one of the more expensive technologies for utilities today, making it less competitive compared with solar, wind and natural gas, by Lazard’s calculations. Only nuclear, offshore wind and “peaker” plants, which are used only during periods of high electricity demand, are more expensive.

Land-based wind and solar power have the lowest estimated costs, far below what consumers are paying for electricity today. The National Renewable Energy Lab has found similar levelized costs for renewable energy, though its estimates for nuclear are lower than Lazard’s.

Upfront costs are also important and can make the difference for whether new power projects can be built, as the East Coast has seen lately.

Several offshore wind farms planned along the Northeast were canceled in recent years as costs rose due to inflation and supply chain problems during the pandemic. Construction costs for the two newest nuclear generators built in the U.S. also rose considerably as the projects, both in the Southeast, faced delays.

Reliability and flexibility matter

But cost is not the whole story. Utilities must balance a number of criteria when investing in power sources.

Most important is matching supply and demand at every moment of the day. Due to the technical characteristics of electricity and how it flows, if the supply of electricity is even a little bit lower than the demand, that can trigger a blackout. This means power companies and consumers need generation that can ramp down when demand is low and ramp up when demand is high.

Since wind and solar generation depend on the wind blowing and the sun shining, these sources must be combined with other types of generation or with storage, such as batteries, to ensure the power grid has exactly as much power as it needs at all times.

Nuclear and coal are predictable and run reliably, but they are inflexible – they take time to ramp up and down, and doing so is expensive. Steam turbines are simply not built for flexibility. The multiple days it took to shut down Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant after an earthquake and tsunami damaged its backup power sources in 2011 illustrated the challenges and safety issues related to ramping down nuclear plants.

That means coal and nuclear aren’t as helpful on those hot summer days when utilities need a quick power increase to keep air conditioners running. These peaks may only happen a few days a year, but keeping the power on is crucial for human health and the economy.

In today’s energy system, the most flexible generation sources are natural gas and hydro. They can quickly adjust to meet changing electricity demand without the safety and cost concerns of coal and nuclear. Hydro can ramp in minutes but can only be built where large dams are feasible. The most cost-effective natural gas technology can ramp up within hours.

The big picture, by power source

Over the past two decades, natural gas use has risen quickly to overtake coal as the most common fuel for generating electricity in the U.S. The boom was largely driven by the growing use of fracking technology, which allowed producers to extract gas from rock and lowered the price.

Natural gas’s low price and high flexibility make it an attractive choice. Its rise is a large part of the reason coal use has plummeted.

But natural gas has its challenges. Natural gas requires pipelines to carry it across the country, leading to disruptive construction. As Texas saw during its February 2021 blackouts, natural gas equipment can also fail in extreme cold. And like coal, natural gas is a fossil fuel that releases greenhouse gases during combustion, so it is also helping to cause climate change and contributes to air pollution that can harm human health.

Nuclear power has been gaining interest recently since it does not contribute to climate change or local air pollution. It also provides a steady baseload of power, which is useful for computing centers as their demand does not fluctuate as much as households.

Of course, nuclear has ongoing challenges around the storage of radioactive waste and security concerns, and construction of large nuclear plants takes many years.

Coal is more flexible than nuclear, but far less so than natural gas or hydropower. Most concerning, coal is extremely dirty, emitting more climate-change-causing gases, and far more air pollution than natural gas.

Solar and wind have grown rapidly in recent years due to their falling costs and environmental benefits. According to Lazard, the cost of solar combined with batteries, which would be as flexible as hydropower, is well below the cost of coal with its limited flexibility.

However, wind and solar tend to take up a lot of space, which has led to challenges in local approvals for new sites and transmission lines. In addition, the sheer number of new projects is overwhelming power system operators’ ability to evaluate them, leading to increasing wait times for new generation to come online.

What’s ahead?

Utilities have another consideration: Federal, state and local governments can also influence and sometimes limit utilities’ choices. Tariffs, for example, can increase the cost of critical components for new construction. Permitting and regulations can slow down development. Subsidies can artificially lower costs.

In our view, policies that are done right can help utilities move toward more reliable and cost-effective choices which are also cleaner. Done wrong, they can be costly to the economy and the environment.

About the Author:

Erin Baker, Distinguished Professor of Industrial Engineering and Faculty Director of The Energy Transition Institute, UMass Amherst and Paola Pimentel Furlanetto, Ph.D. candidate in Industrial Engineering and Operations Research, UMass Amherst

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.