Everyone is debating whether the midterm results will derail AI. I think investors are overlooking a more important risk: how much announced AI infrastructure will actually get built and energized?Consider two findings: 1. Local opposition is becoming a real development constraint. By my count of Ballotpedia’s list, 40 of the 41 local data-center measures decided on November 3 went against development: bans, MW caps, moratoria and rejected rezonings. Nine were advisory, so not all are binding, but the direction is striking. 2. Utility filings reveal demand long before the public announcements. Georgia Power’s May 15 filing with the state commission showed 3,200 MW of new commitments added in April, customer undisclosed. In July, OpenAI announced a 3,200 MW campus in Effingham County that Georgia Power will serve. That doesn’t establish they’re the same project, but it shows how much information utility filings contain. Under its 25-year agreement, OpenAI pays the full infrastructure and electric service costs to serve the site and provides up to 1,000 MW of flexible demand response.That’s where I think the investment debate gets interesting. I’ve been analyzing utility filings, permits, power infrastructure and project delivery through AlphaPod AI. The distinction that keeps emerging is requested MW vs. contracted MW vs. capacity that can actually come online. AI demand can grow rapidly while individual developers face higher costs, delays and weaker returns. Utilities and equipment suppliers may have very different risk/reward profiles. For those investing in AI infrastructure: are you underwriting announced capacity, or the probability that it actually gets energized on schedule? Disclosure: I build AlphaPod AI, an AI infrastructure research platform. -Ai
CryptoAlerta — análise de criptomoedas e mercado em tempo real