从数年缩短到60天，特朗普政府推动加快数据中心接入电网审批

Core Viewpoint - The Trump administration is proposing a significant regulatory change to expedite the approval process for AI data center construction, reducing the review time from years to 60 days, which is seen as a major benefit for tech giants and the administration's AI ambitions [1][2]. Group 1: Regulatory Changes - The U.S. Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright, has urged the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to fast-track applications for data center grid connections, limiting the review period to 60 days [1]. - This proposed rule represents a disruptive shift from the current lengthy regulatory process, which can take several years [1][3]. Group 2: Support for AI and Manufacturing - The initiative aims to support President Trump's goals of revitalizing domestic manufacturing and promoting AI innovation, ensuring that all Americans and domestic industries have access to affordable, reliable, and secure electricity [2]. - Wright emphasized that large power loads, such as AI data centers, must connect to the transmission system in a timely and non-discriminatory manner, requiring unprecedented amounts of electricity and significant investment in the national grid [2]. Group 3: Industry Reactions and Conditions - The tech industry has expressed dissatisfaction with existing approval mechanisms, particularly following FERC's rejection of Talen Energy's request to supply power directly from a nuclear plant to an Amazon data center [3]. - To qualify for the expedited 60-day review, data center projects must either build new power plants or agree to reduce electricity usage during regional shortages [3]. Group 4: Local Challenges and Concerns - Despite the potential benefits for the tech industry, local governments are facing challenges due to rising electricity demands from data centers, manufacturing, and electric vehicles [4]. - There are concerns that allowing these "power-hungry" data centers to quickly connect to the grid will inevitably increase electricity bills for households and businesses, leading to a contentious debate over cost-sharing and energy equity [4].