I see this more of blanket tariffs and rules mainly aimed at AI hyper data centers: most start at over 1GW. Compared to that crypto farms, while drawing 'only' up to several 100's of MW, still makes them a very significant load and the grid infra has to be able to support it. Crypto farms just happen to (rightly) fall into the same category as AI sites because of their very significant high-density loads.
Even the largest mining farms are just a fraction of what AI centers will pull from a states power grid. Case in point, Michigan has 5 AI centers under construction: The smallest has a final build out of 1.2GW and the largest will be 2.5GW.
The point of the new tarrifs is to set in stone who pays for the needed power and the infra to generate and carry it. In most states that is negotiated on a site by site basis. In Michigan after long negotiations with each company, the data centers are paying for all of the new transmission lines, substations, and any additional solar/wind/whatever power plants needed and rates are set so the Public does not pay for any of the power. Additionally, as is done in Texas, rules are setup regarding power cutbacks so power can be used elsewhere when needed to cover severe weather events.
Agreed, AI hyperscale is what these tariffs were written for. The problem for miners is where the thresholds are set. The target is 1 GW sites, but the trigger point is much lower:
- TVA (Tennessee): data centre load above 5 MW
- MDU (North Dakota): 10 MW at an 85% load factor
- Nebraska's Large Load Customer Regulation Act: 20 MW at one site
- AEP Ohio and Dominion GS-5 (Virginia): 25 MW
- El Paso Electric Schedule 27 (Texas): 75 MW
So a 20-50 MW mining site that nobody had in mind still lands in the same rate class as a 2 GW campus. Idaho's Schedule 20 is the exception. That docket dates from 2021, before the AI wave, and it names crypto mining outright, so it isn't just AI spillover.
The point of the new tarrifs is to set in stone who pays for the needed power and the infra to generate and carry it.
Yes, and for miners the real issue is
how they pay. Most of these tariffs include a minimum-take clause. AEP Ohio's large-load customers pay for at least 85% of the energy they expect to need each month, even if they use less. From 2027, Dominion's GS-5 bills 85% of contracted T&D demand and 60% of generation demand whether you draw it or not. That's fine for an AI campus that runs flat out. A miner's economics depend on switching off when hashprice drops or power spikes, and a take-or-pay floor turns those curtailment savings into a cost. You end up paying for power you chose not to use.
Additionally, as is done in Texas, rules are setup regarding power cutbacks so power can be used elsewhere when needed to cover severe weather events.
This is where miners have a real argument that AI sites don't. An AI data centre wants 99.99% uptime and treats a forced cutback as a crisis. A mining farm can go from full load to zero in minutes and happily does. MDU's tariff is literally called a
Demand Response tariff for that reason. The flexibility is part of the deal, and that's why its threshold can sit at 10 MW. We think miners should push for that kind of structure (curtailable in exchange for no minimum-take) rather than accept hyperscale terms that assume a load that never shuts off.
On Michigan: the one we've covered in detail is the OpenAI/Oracle/Related Digital campus in Saline Township, about 1.4 GW and $7B, with around $300M a year in claimed affordability benefits for existing customers. Your point about the developers funding the transmission and substations matches what's in those filings. The tariffs there are Consumers Energy's Rate GPD, DTE's Rate D11 and I&M's Tariff LP.
Do you know if any mining sites in Michigan have been put under GPD or D11 yet, or are they all still on standard industrial rates? That's exactly the kind of real-world detail we'd like to add to the state pages.
