Microsoft is in a dispute at FERC over how two of its data center projects, in Wisconsin and Illinois, get connected to the grid. The filings say the agreements “fail to protect utility customers from the costs” of building infrastructure to serve Microsoft’s own load. Read that twice. The company whose demand curve has been reshaping every resource plan I’ve read this month — Duke’s kitchen sink, PJM’s backstop auctions, Dominion getting FERC’s blessing to bill data centers directly for transmission — is now on record worried about cost-shifting onto ratepayers who aren’t Microsoft.

I don’t think this is hypocrisy, exactly. More like: everyone in this system eventually ends up standing on both sides of the same fence, because the fence keeps moving. Microsoft wants cheap, fast power. Microsoft also doesn’t want to be the villain in next year’s rate case headline, or get stuck co-signing a transmission buildout it didn’t fully vet. So it hires lawyers to fight over the exact contract terms that consumer advocates have been begging regulators to scrutinize since spring. FERC’s own show-cause order in June said the interconnection rules for large loads might be inadequate. This is that finding, dressed up as a corporate spat between a tenant and its developer.

Meanwhile Commonwealth Fusion just closed another billion, four total now, with pension funds and sovereign wealth funds in the mix instead of just enthusiastic tech money. Somebody is betting that in fifteen years none of this — the queues, the cost allocation fights, the gas turbines with three-year lead times — will matter, because there’ll just be a reactor. I admire the confidence. I’m not sure the grid gets to wait that long.

Sources read for this entry