Thread

Most data centers refusing to say how much water, electricity they use

216 points · 199 comments · Thom2503

pbasista · 1790772235 · focus · HN ↗
From the article:
> The European Energy Efficiency Directive (EED) obliges data centers with an installed capacity of at least 500 kilowatts (kW) to report data including their energy and water consumption. In practice, few do so, despite the directive being in effect for three years.
I do not understand how that is even possible.
If any law is supposed to have any practical impact on the society, it needs to be enforced. Otherwise it is a guideline at best, not a law.
I think what would help is for these companies to each receive strict and hefty fines for non-disclosing the electricity and water consumption data they are obliged to disclose.
I assume that after that they would report all the required data very quickly.
1. bewareofscams · 1790772538 · focus · HN ↗
  My account is banned, so for whomever having [showdead] on:
  European directive is not a law, it's a directive.
  It's up to the national governments to create applicable laws that are to the letter and to the spirit of a European directive. Then national bodies will start applying the law and govern its implementation/adherence.
  An by "up to" I mean they are obliged... eventually.
  1. throwayaway · 1790773853 · focus · HN ↗
    It is not, I can clearly see it without it on.
    And I wouldn't be so sure on being 'eventually' obliged, someone has to enforce it for that to happen and it's not looking like anyone has profit in it
2. semiquaver · 1790772558 · focus · HN ↗
  Perhaps this article is one step in the process of forcing disclosure. The Dutch parliament has recently (April 2026) clarified its law implementing the EED.
3. Pragmata · 1790773254 · focus · HN ↗
  The purpose of these laws is to give the state the option to crack down on anyone they feel like at any time. They are not meant to be obeyed, and that is obvious to anyone with eyes.
  1. [deleted] · 1790773672 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
4. flir · 1790773437 · focus · HN ↗
  It's probably because directives have to be read into law at the country level.
  (Directives are binding on states. They transpose them into national law, possibly adding additional clauses as it goes past (EU directives set a minimum standard, not a maximum) at which point they're binding on people.)
  Nobody ever said the EU was efficient. Look for a deadline for that transposition on the original directive.
  1. ba1afd89f34cb23 · 1790775574 · focus · HN ↗
    You make a very good point. However, in this case, the deadline is two years in the past. From Article 12:
    > 1. By 15 May 2024 and every year thereafter, Member States shall require owners and operators of data centres in their territory with a power demand of the installed information technology (IT) of at least 500kW, to make the information set out in Annex VII publicly available, except for information subject to Union and national law protecting trade and business secrets and confidentiality.
    > 2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to data centres used for, or providing their services exclusively with the final aim of, defence and civil protection.
    <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AJOL_2023_231_R_0001&qid=1695186598766" rel="nofollow">https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AJOL...
    voxic11 · 1790775969 · focus · HN ↗
    So maybe your proposed hefty fines actually need to be imposed on the states which haven't implemented the directive?
    lccerina · 1790778135 · focus · HN ↗
    European Union has procedures for infringement or non-conformity in the reception of directives, but in practice, the fines are relatively small compared to a country budget (or how much money a country gains from taxes by not applying the directive) [1]
    [1] <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/law/application-eu-law/implementing-eu-law/infringement-procedure_en" rel="nofollow">https://commission.europa.eu/law/application-eu-law/implemen...
    pc86 · 1790776031 · focus · HN ↗
    This doesn't seem like the type of comment it makes sense to create a throwaway for.
    busssard · 1790781899 · focus · HN ↗
    maybe they work for a datacenter
    flir · 1790778398 · focus · HN ↗
    Cool, thanks for looking that up. This gets us closer to where the fault lies. Has the Netherlands implemented the directive yet?
    Chatbot says "partially", and "Article 12, concerning data centres, has already been implemented. The relevant Dutch decree was published in May 2024 and entered into force on 7 May 2024." and a link to <a href="https://wetgevingskalender.overheid.nl/Regeling/WGK026248" rel="nofollow">https://wetgevingskalender.overheid.nl/Regeling/WGK026248
    But I neither read Dutch, nor trust the chatbot to do so, so all I can do is report the link.
    jeroenhd · 1790780660 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm no lawyer but based on the legal text in your link I'd say the law went into effect two years ago at least.
    The Dutch newspaper participating in this article (<a href="https://www.trouw.nl/duurzaamheid-economie/nederland-weet-amper-hoeveel-stroom-en-water-zijn-datacentra-opslokken~bbd70381/?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lighthousereports.com%2F" rel="nofollow">https://www.trouw.nl/duurzaamheid-economie/nederland-weet-am...) states that a quarter of the statistics are public, but also that within Europe, that's one of the more transparent numbers.
    It looks like nobody is really enforcing these laws anywhere.
    anon48293 · 1790781048 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes it says it has been implemented, both the Raad van State and the king signed it, it’s been in effect since then.
5. ExpertAdvisor01 · 1790773466 · focus · HN ↗
  Because it is an EU-DIRECTIVE.
  Directives are not the same as regulations .
  Directives are goals that must be achieved by adapting existing national laws or introducing new ones, and that takes time.
  1. troupo · 1790774108 · focus · HN ↗
    Sadly, the EU is also lax when it comes to enforcing regulations. See GDPR.
    close04 · 1790774272 · focus · HN ↗
    No as much lax as lacking resources to deal with widespread violations. They probably focus on the most egregious cases.
    vanviegen · 1790774381 · focus · HN ↗
    Isn't GDPR a directive as well?
    lawtalkinghuman · 1790775159 · focus · HN ↗
    No, the clue is in the name, "General Data Protection Regulation". If it were a directive, it would be called GDPD.
    pjc50 · 1790774598 · focus · HN ↗
    GDPR enforcement belongs to individual country information commissioners, unfortunately.
    The EU is not as federal as the US and has basically no "federales" law enforcement of its own.
    vidarh · 1790775214 · focus · HN ↗
    The EU is in effect much closer to a confederation than a federation. A lot of the problematic aspects of how the EU is set up are attempts to work around the limitations imposed by not having sufficient public support to reform it into a more federal structure. To some that's a feature, of course, to others it's a significant nuisance.
    lawtalkinghuman · 1790775271 · focus · HN ↗
    And the practical effect of this is you get a race to the bottom: countries compete on how lax they are going to be in enforcing GDPR so as to attract American tech companies.
    The Data Protection Commission in Ireland are remarkably lax about enforcing it because the government quite likes the tax revenue that Google, Apple and Meta brings them.
    philipallstar · 1790775665 · focus · HN ↗
    It's not a race to the bottom any more than competition lowering consumer prices is a race to the bottom. It's one of the few checks on governments just demanding more and more tax money for little return.
    [deleted] · 1790778769 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
6. pjc50 · 1790774528 · focus · HN ↗
  National governments kind of suck at enforcing these. In some cases, like the notorious Ireland Apple tax shelter, they may not want to enforce the rules because they feel they are benefiting from the evasion.
  This kind of basic regulatory work is pretty thankless even when it's important. But I suspect the toxic politics of data centers will kick up some enforcement action sooner or later.
  (Why is it so toxic? Well, the explicit promise from AI companies of mass unemployment combined with higher electricity prices, and maybe even destroy the world <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/sep/09/anthropic-researchers-ai-human-extinction" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/sep/09/anthropic... is why.)
  1. philipallstar · 1790775702 · focus · HN ↗
    > In some cases, like the notorious Ireland Apple tax shelter, they may not want to enforce the rules because they feel they are benefiting from the evasion.
    I thought it turned out the EU had no business in national tax affairs.
    flir · 1790778656 · focus · HN ↗
    The line between a tax break and illegal state aid is exceedingly blurry. (It swung back and forth as it went through the courts, but the final ruling was "illegal state aid")
    philipallstar · 1790783296 · focus · HN ↗
    Extra-national laws are a real minefield, though. Ireland is in a great position without having too do very much of its own to have got there other than sign the right agreements.
7. bearjaws · 1790777128 · focus · HN ↗
  It's probably because that 500kw number is too arbitrary. I work in a single warehouse with robotics based logistics that uses 500kw. Nobody is asking us how much water we use.
  Reality is if a regulation is too broad it tends to get overwhelmed and dies when it requires 100 people to enforce.
  Even a basic in house data center can push 100kw with a few servers.
8. quickthrowman · 1790786844 · focus · HN ↗
  500kW is basically 0kW when it comes to data centers. That’s only 600A at 480V three-phase, a McDonalds restaurant has a larger electrical service than that, lol.
  I have more than one customer with a single motor that uses that much power.
9. JuniperMesos · 1790819884 · focus · HN ↗
  All sorts of laws are not being actively enforced, sometimes for good reasons like "It's relatively unimportant" or "it's important but enforcement is costly" ; sometimes because the law is controversial and the people who don't want it to exist at all weren't able to prevent it from being passed but are able to stimy effective enforcement.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.