In her Oct. 17 column, “Rush for energy-hungry data centers is folly,” Johanna Neumann omits some important context. While U.S. electricity generation has remained relatively stable over the last few decades, this is not the case for worldwide generation. It has steadily increased, and the U.S. has benefited from items produced overseas and imported. Our electricity usage would undoubtedly have been more significant had we produced everything we consumed.

She also mentions PJM Interconnection LLC’s push to keep two coal plants open three years longer to meet electricity demands for planned data centers. Yes, the data centers and AI will use more electricity, but other factors are in play. PJM recently released a statement (Resource Adequacy and Expected Load Growth, Docket No. AD24-10-000, 10-16-2024, by Aftab Khan, PJM executive vice president) which provides essential context.

PJM expects 21% of their current installed generation capacity will be retired by 2030, and that new capacity is not being added at a rate to make up for the exiting capacity. EVs, related charging infrastructure, and state goals within PJM’s region to increase conversion to electric heat sources significantly contribute to expected load growth. Per Mr. Khan, wind and solar “are inverter-based, intermittent, non-dispatchable, decentralized, and not fuel secure. The corresponding implications of this basic engineering fact for system planning are profound.”

So, data centers and AI account for part of the expected load growth, but we cannot ignore the other drivers of expected net load growth, including the regulatory, permitting, and fundamental engineering challenges of incorporating wind and solar in the grid.

Stopping others from investing in data centers or AI projects is not wise. This activity will proceed regardless of what U.S. authorities do, and we should not have to play catch-up in critically important technology. New York state, no slouch regarding environmental and energy issues, has a GlobalFoundries facility in Malta, New York, and Micron is planning a large facility in Clay, New York. Both use or are expected to use significant amounts of electricity.

These may be scaled back or scrapped, but I suspect New York has its eyes on the benefits of an increased tax base and high-paying jobs.

The column does not mention that China and India continue to build new coal-fired electric generating facilities at a rapid clip, making any offsetting reduction in the U.S. inconsequential from a global perspective.

Finally, the writer’s desire for “key action[s] to help bring about a livable climate for future generations” is laudable. Still, one can be in a “livable climate” but not have access to reliable and affordable energy sources that will lift you out of extreme poverty. Almost 3 billion people lack electricity or access to clean cooking fuel — how about livable conditions for the current generation?

Daniel Lyons lives in Florence.