Slashdot Mirror
How Amazon, One of the Richest Companies in the World, Secretly Offloads Its Electricity Costs To Local Taxpayers Who Live Near Its Data Centers (bloomberg.com)
Several readers have shared this Bloomberg report: Amazon Web Services, the company's cloud computing business, is its fastest-growing and most profitable division, but it comes with a lot of upfront infrastructure costs and ongoing expenses, the biggest of which is electricity. Over the past two years, Amazon has almost doubled the size of its physical footprint worldwide, to 254 million square feet, including dozens of new data centers with vast fields of servers running 24/7. In at least two states, it's also negotiated with utilities and politicians to stick other people with the bills, piling untold millions of dollars on top of the estimated $1.2 billion in state and municipal tax incentives the company has received over the past decade.
Other companies, including Google and Tesla, have taken advantage of the power industry's hunger for growth and the relative secrecy that followed its 1990s deregulation in dozens of states. But Amazon stands out for its success in offloading its power costs and also because it dominates America's cloud business, which has gone from nonexistent to using 2 percent of U.S. electricity in about a decade. "Amazon had a huge advantage, because there weren't a lot of other sectors growing in the electricity market," says Neal Elliott, senior director of research at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), a green lobbying group. The company has also ratcheted up the secrecy around who's paying for electricity, says environmental advocate Greenpeace, which calls Amazon the single biggest obstacle to industry transparency.
Other companies, including Google and Tesla, have taken advantage of the power industry's hunger for growth and the relative secrecy that followed its 1990s deregulation in dozens of states. But Amazon stands out for its success in offloading its power costs and also because it dominates America's cloud business, which has gone from nonexistent to using 2 percent of U.S. electricity in about a decade. "Amazon had a huge advantage, because there weren't a lot of other sectors growing in the electricity market," says Neal Elliott, senior director of research at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), a green lobbying group. The company has also ratcheted up the secrecy around who's paying for electricity, says environmental advocate Greenpeace, which calls Amazon the single biggest obstacle to industry transparency.
I say again. After tax breaks and all other leaching, does it really make sense for us to allure these huge companies to cities if there is no net benefit for the city?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
That editorial slant was really something.
Can't blame Amazon for taking the incentives offered to them. Sounds like some communities may need to have some sharp discussions with their city councils. Of course, they may learn there was a big win in total tax revenue that prevented their taxes from rising. Or maybe the city council was full of idiots.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
In at least two states, it's also negotiated with utilities and politicians to stick other people with the bills
So, is this Amazon's fault, or the fault of the "utilities and politicians"?
call me jaded, disgruntled, pessimistic, or just a crochety old guy; my angle on this was not so much Amazon 'taking incentives offered' but more greasing the palms of the 5-6 people that decided, for the entire city, to cut these deals and sack the residents to augment the funds. At this point I have little faith in any level of government doing things outside of all the tricks that are nothing more than loopholes to have 'legalized bribery'.
Have gnu, will travel.
RTFA. The data centers donâ(TM)t provide hardly shit for jobs. Itâ(TM)s one thing to bend over backwards when a factory opens up and youâ(TM)ve got 800 to 2000 new jobs. Itâ(TM)s entirely another when the same footprint shows up and you created 15 damn jobs
Coal would have died without Greenpeace and others like them driving up the cost of nuclear. Coal mines were going bankrupt in the late 60s and early 70s but then nuclear costs went up 10x and suddenly coal was viable again. Greenpeace is responsible for a good portion of the CO2 in the atmosphere as well as lead, arsenic and radioactive dust released from coal burning (yes, coal has radio active material in it, usually in the form of daughter particles of radon decay). Plus all the deaths from the mining of coal. Screw them and their virtue signalling about being good for the environment.
It's very true. I am the chief network engineer for 7 datacenters, and on the facilities side, we employ probably 5 people, depending on how you classify them.