It absolutely is. In a crisis, like the one we are in, the high-margin non-essential uses should subsidize the low-margin essential ones.

A crisis doesn't magically create generating capacity.

Say a system had X capacity and 100% utilization. Now someone wants to build a data center that consumes 0.1X power. Demand is now 1.1X and to prevent the system from going over capacity 0.1X of pre-existing demand has to be destroyed.

Subsidizing other users makes the problem worse because they will increase their energy usage in response to the lower prices.

I'm a huge fan of a household allotment to a reasonable amount followed by market rates for everyone. We can start with water and electricity.

Every household gets X gallons of water a month at a regulated rate. After that, everyone competes equally.

Lots of people are in well water and lots of people have solar.

Regulation and increased taxes/fees just make everything more obtuse and expensive, not better or simpler.

Simpler isn't always the thing to optimize for when people can't afford to heat their homes.

But you're right, we could also solve this problem very simply, without gradiated utility rates, by taxing the crap out of corporate profits and redistributing them to everyone else. This would punish corps who aren't building data centers, but if you don't mind turning the whole country into an AI server farm, I guess that would work too.

So you require the data center to pay for increasing generating capacity by 1.1X as part of its permitting.

They do but that also does not magically create supply.

What? Maybe I wasn't clear, but I meant that you make them pay for increasing the supply.

I understand but it takes time to build power plants. You still have the same immediate capacity problem and need to reduce demand until the new supply comes online.

No, but energy is sold at market prices, and money is fungible and money can be moved.

Money does, in fact, create generating capacity, as expensive, idling energy sources are turned up.