A New York legislator wants to pick up the pieces of the dead California AI bill

Stay Ahead, Stay ONMINE

A New York legislator wants to pick up the pieces of the dead California AI bill

The first Democrat in New York history with a computer science background wants to revive some of the ideas behind the failed California AI safety bill, SB 1047, with a new version in his state that would regulate the most advanced AI models. It’s called the RAISE Act, an acronym for “Responsible AI Safety and Education.” Assembly member Alex Bores hopes his bill, currently an unpublished draft—subject to change—that MIT Technology Review has seen, will address many of the concerns that blocked SB 1047 from passing into law. SB 1047 was, at first, thought to be a fairly modest bill that would pass without much fanfare. In fact, it flew through the California statehouse with huge margins and received significant public support. However, before it even landed on Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk for signature in September, it sparked an intense national fight. Google, Meta, and OpenAI came out against the bill, alongside top congressional Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Zoe Lofgren. Even Hollywood celebrities got involved, with Jane Fonda and Mark Hamill expressing support for the bill. Ultimately, Newsom vetoed SB 1047, effectively killing regulation of so-called frontier AI models not just in California but, with the lack of laws on the national level, anywhere in the US, where the most powerful systems are developed. Now Bores hopes to revive the battle. The main provisions in the RAISE Act include requiring AI companies to develop safety plans for the development and deployment of their models. The bill also provides protections for whistleblowers at AI companies. It forbids retaliation against an employee who shares information about an AI model in the belief that it may cause “critical harm”; such whistleblowers can report the information to the New York attorney general. One way the bill defines critical harm is the use of an AI model to create a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon that results in the death or serious injury of 100 or more people. Alternatively, a critical harm could be a use of the AI model that results in 100 or more deaths or at least $1 billion in damages in an act with limited human oversight that if committed by a human would constitute a crime requiring intent, recklessness, or gross negligence. The safety plans would ensure that a company has cybersecurity protections in place to prevent unauthorized access to a model. The plan would also require testing of models to assess risks before and after training, as well as detailed descriptions of procedures to assess the risks associated with post-training modifications. For example, some current AI systems have safeguards that can be easily and cheaply removed by a malicious actor. A safety plan would have to address how the company plans to mitigate these actions. The safety plans would then be audited by a third party, like a nonprofit with technical expertise that currently tests AI models. And if violations are found, the bill empowers the attorney general of New York to issue fines and, if necessary, go to the courts to determine whether to halt unsafe development. A different flavour of bill The safety plans and external audits were elements of SB 1047, but Bores aims to differentiate his bill from the California one. “We focused a lot on what the feedback was for 1047,” he says. “Parts of the criticism were in good faith and could make improvements. And so we’ve made a lot of changes.” The RAISE Act diverges from SB 1047 in a few ways. For one, SB 1047 would have created the Board of Frontier Models, tasked with approving updates to the definitions and regulations around these AI models, but the proposed act would not create a new government body. The New York bill also doesn’t create a public cloud computing cluster, which SB 1047 would have done. The cluster was intended to support projects to develop AI for the public good. The RAISE Act doesn’t have SB 1047’s requirement that companies be able to halt all operations of their model, a capability sometimes referred to as a “kill switch.” Some critics alleged that the shutdown provision of SB 1047 would harm open-source models, since developers can’t shut down a model someone else may now possess (even though SB 1047 had an exemption for open-source models). The RAISE Act avoids the fight entirely. SB 1047 referred to an “advanced persistent threat” associated with bad actors trying to steal information during model training. The RAISE Act does away with that definition, sticking to addressing critical harms from covered models. Focusing on the wrong issues? Bores’ bill is very specific with its definitions in an effort to clearly delineate what this bill is and isn’t about. The RAISE Act doesn’t address some of the current risks from AI models, like bias, discrimination, and job displacement. Like SB 1047, it is very focused on catastrophic risks from frontier AI models. Some in the AI community believe this focus is misguided. “We’re broadly supportive of any efforts to hold large models accountable,” says Kate Brennan, associate director of the AI Now Institute, which conducts AI policy research. “But defining critical harms only in terms of the most catastrophic harms from the most advanced models overlooks the material risks that AI poses, whether it’s workers subject to surveillance mechanisms, prone to workplace injuries because of algorithmically managed speed rates, climate impacts of large-scale AI systems, data centers exerting massive pressure on local power grids, or data center construction sidestepping key environmental protections,” she says. Bores has worked on other bills addressing current harms posed by AI systems, like discrimination and lack of transparency. That said, Bores is clear that this new bill is aimed at mitigating catastrophic risks from more advanced models. “We’re not talking about any model that exists right now,” he says. “We are talking about truly frontier models, those on the edge of what we can build and what we understand, and there is risk in that.” The bill would cover only models that pass a certain threshold for how many computations their training required, typically measured in FLOPs (floating-point operations). In the bill, a covered model is one that requires more than 1026 FLOPs in its training and costs over $100 million. For reference, GPT-4 is estimated to have required 1025 FLOPs. This approach may draw scrutiny from industry forces. “While we can’t comment specifically on legislation that isn’t public yet, we believe effective regulation should focus on specific applications rather than broad model categories,” says a spokesperson at Hugging Face, a company that opposed SB 1047. Early days The bill is in its nascent stages, so it’s subject to many edits in the future, and no opposition has yet formed. There may already be lessons to be learned from the battle over SB 1047, however. “There’s significant disagreement in the space, but I think debate around future legislation would benefit from more clarity around the severity, the likelihood, and the imminence of harms,” says Scott Kohler, a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who tracked the development of SB 1047. When asked about the idea of mandated safety plans for AI companies, assembly member Edward Ra, a Republican who hasn’t yet seen a draft of the new bill yet, said: “I don’t have any general problem with the idea of doing that. We expect businesses to be good corporate citizens, but sometimes you do have to put some of that into writing.” Ra and Bores co chair the New York Future Caucus, which aims to bring together lawmakers 45 and under to tackle pressing issues that affect future generations. Scott Wiener, a California state senator who sponsored SB 1047, is happy to see that his initial bill, even though it failed, is inspiring further legislation and discourse. “The bill triggered a conversation about whether we should just trust the AI labs to make good decisions, which some will, but we know from past experience, some won’t make good decisions, and that’s why a level of basic regulation for incredibly powerful technology is important,” he says. He has his own plans to reignite the fight: “We’re not done in California. There will be continued work in California, including for next year. I’m optimistic that California is gonna be able to get some good things done.” And some believe the RAISE Act will highlight a notable contradiction: Many of the industry’s players insist that they want regulation, but when any regulation is proposed, they fight against it. “SB 1047 became a referendum on whether AI should be regulated at all,” says Brennan. “There are a lot of things we saw with 1047 that we can expect to see replay in New York if this bill is introduced. We should be prepared to see a massive lobbying reaction that industry is going to bring to even the lightest-touch regulation.” Wiener and Bores both wish to see regulation at a national level, but in the absence of such legislation, they’ve taken the battle upon themselves. At first it may seem odd for states to take up such important reforms, but California houses the headquarters of the top AI companies, and New York, which has the third-largest state economy in the US, is home to offices for OpenAI and other AI companies. The two states may be well positioned to lead the conversation around regulation. “There is uncertainty at the direction of federal policy with the transition upcoming and around the role of Congress,” says Kohler. “It is likely that states will continue to step up in this area.” Wiener’s advice for New York legislators entering the arena of AI regulation? “Buckle up and get ready.”

Assembly member Alex Bores hopes his bill, currently an unpublished draft—subject to change—that MIT Technology Review has seen, will address many of the concerns that blocked SB 1047 from passing into law.

SB 1047 was, at first, thought to be a fairly modest bill that would pass without much fanfare. In fact, it flew through the California statehouse with huge margins and received significant public support.

However, before it even landed on Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk for signature in September, it sparked an intense national fight. Google, Meta, and OpenAI came out against the bill, alongside top congressional Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Zoe Lofgren. Even Hollywood celebrities got involved, with Jane Fonda and Mark Hamill expressing support for the bill.

Ultimately, Newsom vetoed SB 1047, effectively killing regulation of so-called frontier AI models not just in California but, with the lack of laws on the national level, anywhere in the US, where the most powerful systems are developed.

Now Bores hopes to revive the battle. The main provisions in the RAISE Act include requiring AI companies to develop safety plans for the development and deployment of their models.

The bill also provides protections for whistleblowers at AI companies. It forbids retaliation against an employee who shares information about an AI model in the belief that it may cause “critical harm”; such whistleblowers can report the information to the New York attorney general. One way the bill defines critical harm is the use of an AI model to create a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon that results in the death or serious injury of 100 or more people.

Alternatively, a critical harm could be a use of the AI model that results in 100 or more deaths or at least $1 billion in damages in an act with limited human oversight that if committed by a human would constitute a crime requiring intent, recklessness, or gross negligence.

The safety plans would ensure that a company has cybersecurity protections in place to prevent unauthorized access to a model. The plan would also require testing of models to assess risks before and after training, as well as detailed descriptions of procedures to assess the risks associated with post-training modifications. For example, some current AI systems have safeguards that can be easily and cheaply removed by a malicious actor. A safety plan would have to address how the company plans to mitigate these actions.

The safety plans would then be audited by a third party, like a nonprofit with technical expertise that currently tests AI models. And if violations are found, the bill empowers the attorney general of New York to issue fines and, if necessary, go to the courts to determine whether to halt unsafe development.

A different flavour of bill

The safety plans and external audits were elements of SB 1047, but Bores aims to differentiate his bill from the California one. “We focused a lot on what the feedback was for 1047,” he says. “Parts of the criticism were in good faith and could make improvements. And so we’ve made a lot of changes.”

The RAISE Act diverges from SB 1047 in a few ways. For one, SB 1047 would have created the Board of Frontier Models, tasked with approving updates to the definitions and regulations around these AI models, but the proposed act would not create a new government body. The New York bill also doesn’t create a public cloud computing cluster, which SB 1047 would have done. The cluster was intended to support projects to develop AI for the public good.

The RAISE Act doesn’t have SB 1047’s requirement that companies be able to halt all operations of their model, a capability sometimes referred to as a “kill switch.” Some critics alleged that the shutdown provision of SB 1047 would harm open-source models, since developers can’t shut down a model someone else may now possess (even though SB 1047 had an exemption for open-source models).

The RAISE Act avoids the fight entirely. SB 1047 referred to an “advanced persistent threat” associated with bad actors trying to steal information during model training. The RAISE Act does away with that definition, sticking to addressing critical harms from covered models.

Focusing on the wrong issues?

Bores’ bill is very specific with its definitions in an effort to clearly delineate what this bill is and isn’t about. The RAISE Act doesn’t address some of the current risks from AI models, like bias, discrimination, and job displacement. Like SB 1047, it is very focused on catastrophic risks from frontier AI models.

Some in the AI community believe this focus is misguided. “We’re broadly supportive of any efforts to hold large models accountable,” says Kate Brennan, associate director of the AI Now Institute, which conducts AI policy research.

“But defining critical harms only in terms of the most catastrophic harms from the most advanced models overlooks the material risks that AI poses, whether it’s workers subject to surveillance mechanisms, prone to workplace injuries because of algorithmically managed speed rates, climate impacts of large-scale AI systems, data centers exerting massive pressure on local power grids, or data center construction sidestepping key environmental protections,” she says.

Bores has worked on other bills addressing current harms posed by AI systems, like discrimination and lack of transparency. That said, Bores is clear that this new bill is aimed at mitigating catastrophic risks from more advanced models. “We’re not talking about any model that exists right now,” he says. “We are talking about truly frontier models, those on the edge of what we can build and what we understand, and there is risk in that.”

The bill would cover only models that pass a certain threshold for how many computations their training required, typically measured in FLOPs (floating-point operations). In the bill, a covered model is one that requires more than 10²⁶ FLOPs in its training and costs over $100 million. For reference, GPT-4 is estimated to have required 10²⁵ FLOPs.

This approach may draw scrutiny from industry forces. “While we can’t comment specifically on legislation that isn’t public yet, we believe effective regulation should focus on specific applications rather than broad model categories,” says a spokesperson at Hugging Face, a company that opposed SB 1047.

Early days

The bill is in its nascent stages, so it’s subject to many edits in the future, and no opposition has yet formed. There may already be lessons to be learned from the battle over SB 1047, however. “There’s significant disagreement in the space, but I think debate around future legislation would benefit from more clarity around the severity, the likelihood, and the imminence of harms,” says Scott Kohler, a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who tracked the development of SB 1047.

When asked about the idea of mandated safety plans for AI companies, assembly member Edward Ra, a Republican who hasn’t yet seen a draft of the new bill yet, said: “I don’t have any general problem with the idea of doing that. We expect businesses to be good corporate citizens, but sometimes you do have to put some of that into writing.”

Ra and Bores co chair the New York Future Caucus, which aims to bring together lawmakers 45 and under to tackle pressing issues that affect future generations.

Scott Wiener, a California state senator who sponsored SB 1047, is happy to see that his initial bill, even though it failed, is inspiring further legislation and discourse. “The bill triggered a conversation about whether we should just trust the AI labs to make good decisions, which some will, but we know from past experience, some won’t make good decisions, and that’s why a level of basic regulation for incredibly powerful technology is important,” he says.

He has his own plans to reignite the fight: “We’re not done in California. There will be continued work in California, including for next year. I’m optimistic that California is gonna be able to get some good things done.”

And some believe the RAISE Act will highlight a notable contradiction: Many of the industry’s players insist that they want regulation, but when any regulation is proposed, they fight against it. “SB 1047 became a referendum on whether AI should be regulated at all,” says Brennan. “There are a lot of things we saw with 1047 that we can expect to see replay in New York if this bill is introduced. We should be prepared to see a massive lobbying reaction that industry is going to bring to even the lightest-touch regulation.”

Wiener and Bores both wish to see regulation at a national level, but in the absence of such legislation, they’ve taken the battle upon themselves. At first it may seem odd for states to take up such important reforms, but California houses the headquarters of the top AI companies, and New York, which has the third-largest state economy in the US, is home to offices for OpenAI and other AI companies. The two states may be well positioned to lead the conversation around regulation.

“There is uncertainty at the direction of federal policy with the transition upcoming and around the role of Congress,” says Kohler. “It is likely that states will continue to step up in this area.”

Wiener’s advice for New York legislators entering the arena of AI regulation? “Buckle up and get ready.”

Stay Ahead

Explore More Insights

Stay ahead with more perspectives on cutting-edge power, infrastructure, energy, bitcoin and AI solutions. Explore these articles to uncover strategies and insights shaping the future of industries.

Chinese cyberspies target VMware vSphere for long-term persistence

Designed to work in virtualized environments The CISA, NSA, and Canadian Cyber Center analysts note that some of the BRICKSTORM samples are virtualization-aware and they create a virtual socket (VSOCK) interface that enables inter-VM communication and data exfiltration. The malware also checks the environment upon execution to ensure it’s running

IBM boosts DNS protection for multicloud operations

“In addition to this DNS synchronization, you can publish DNS configurations to your Amazon Simple Storage Service (S3) bucket. As you implement DNS changes, the S3 bucket will automatically update. The ability to store multiple configurations in your S3 bucket allows you to choose the most appropriate restore point if

Andrew Wheeler of HPE Labs: Being a constant learner is key to being a good technologist

Andrew Wheeler, director of HPE Labs, speaking at the Discover 2025 event in Barcelona, Spain.

Cloudflare firewall reacts badly to React exploit mitigation

During the same window, Downdetector saw a spike in problem reports for enterprise services including Shopify, Zoom, Claude AI, and Amazon Web Services, and a host of consumer services from games to dating apps. Cloudflare explained the outage on its service status page: “A change made to how Cloudflare’s Web

No Hurricanes Strike USA For 1st Time in a Decade

For the first time in a decade, not a single hurricane struck the U.S. this season, and that was a much needed break. That’s what Neil Jacobs, Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrator, said in a statement posted on NOAA’s site recently, which summarized the Atlantic, Eastern Pacific, and Central Pacific hurricane seasons. “Still, a tropical storm caused damage and casualties in the Carolinas, distant hurricanes created rough ocean waters that caused property damage along the East Coast, and neighboring countries experienced direct hits from hurricanes,” Jacobs said in the statement. The NOAA statement noted that the Atlantic basin produced 13 named storms. Of these, five became hurricanes, including four major hurricanes, NOAA highlighted, pointing out that an average season has 14 named storms, seven hurricanes, and three major hurricanes. In the statement, NOAA said, overall, the season fell within the predicted ranges for named storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes issued in NOAA’s seasonal outlooks. Hurricane season activity was near-normal for both the Eastern Pacific basin and Central Pacific basin and fell within predicted ranges, respectively, NOAA added in the statement. The organization highlighted that the Eastern Pacific basin hurricane season produced 18 named storms, “with nine becoming hurricanes and three intensifying to major hurricane status”. “Two named storms formed in the Central Pacific basin, with one, Iona, becoming a major hurricane well south of Hawaii,” NOAA added. “Eastern Pacific storms Henriette and Kiko were also hurricanes in the Central Pacific that passed northeast of Hawaii with little impact to the state,” it continued. AI Guidance In the NOAA statement, Jacobs said “the 2025 season was the first year NOAA’s National Hurricane Center incorporated Artificial Intelligence model guidance into their forecasts”. “The NHC [National Hurricane Center] performed exceedingly well when it came to forecasting rapid intensification for

Chile Pens Nearly $12B Deals to Buy Vaca Muerta Oil

Chile’s Empresa Nacional del Petróleo (Enap) has signed contracts to purchase crude from Argentina’s Vaca Muerta shale patch from Argentina’s state-owned YPF SA, Norway’s majority state-owned Equinor ASA, Britain’s Shell PLC and Mexico’s Vista Energy SAB de CV. The agreements, which last through June 2033, amount to about 35 percent of Enap’s annual crude demand, Enap said in an online statement. YPF said separately the initial combined volume is up to 70,000 barrels per day (bpd). YPF said its share is around 32,000 bpd or 45.45 percent of the total volume. “The contracts, signed after a negotiation process and operational testing that lasted more than two years, involve a projected value of nearly $12 billion, making it the largest commercial agreement in Enap’s history”, Enap said. “As a reference, the total annual trade between Chile and Argentina is currently close to $8 billion”. The volumes will be delivered via the more than 400-kilometer (248.55 miles) Trans-Andean pipeline, co-owned between Enap, YPF and Chevron Corp. After 17 years, the pipeline resumed flows July 2023, delivering about 40,000 barrels per day of Vaca Muerta oil to Enap’s facilities in Hualpén, Región del Biobío, as previously reported by Enap. “The subscription of these contracts provides greater security and stability to the supply of crude oil, strengthens the country’s energy security, enhances the logistics chain on both sides of the mountain range and reduces dependence on maritime transport that is regularly impacted by factors such as weather conditions or port congestion”, Enap said. “In addition, it allows for the purchase of crude oil with a lower sulfur content, which is beneficial from an environmental point of view. “It also reinforces Enap’s recently announced positioning with regard to its logistics business, as it will enable the export of crude oil from Vaca Muerta through the

WoodMac Flags ‘Key Themes’ Shaping Lower 48 in 2026

Wood Mackenzie (WoodMac) identified several “key themes shaping the U.S. Lower 48 landscape” next year in a statement sent to Rigzone recently. Among these was a projection that the horizontal rig count will fall below 500. “Oil focused activity levels will decline as operators face macro headwinds, particularly in H1 2026,” WoodMac said in the statement. “This sits below the $60 per barrel threshold that sparks questions around investment strategy,” it added. WoodMac said in the statement, however, that declining rig count is no longer the needle mover it once was. “Major strides in operational efficiency have reduced the number of active rigs required to maintain base business,” the company stated. “Operators are drilling faster, and cycle times are improving,” it added. WoodMac went on to note in the statement that “the activity taper will create deflationary pressures on costs”. “Wood Mackenzie expects to see a modest reduction in drilling and completion costs across the Lower 48 in 2026, including tariffs,” it said. “Lower costs help protect most of the new drill supply curve. Even at $60 per barrel Brent, more than 90 percent of U.S. Lower 48 assets can cover their capex requirements, with all assets covering operating costs,” it continued. Another theme was a projection that core Permian plays produce more than 50 percent of U.S. onshore liquids next year. “Lower 48 oil production will stall in 2026 for the first time since the pandemic,” WoodMac warned. “Rigs falling throughout 2025 and less activity in the year create this culmination. The Permian remains resilient and the powerhouse of U.S. oil supply,” it added. “Combined 2026 production from the Delaware Wolfcamp, Bone Spring, Midland Wolfcamp, and Midland Spraberry will account for more than 50 percent of onshore U.S. oil output for the first time ever,” it continued. “Delaware Wolfcamp

DTECH 2026: 5 observations ahead of the biggest grid event of the year

The energy transition isn’t coming — it’s here. Across North America, utilities are navigating an unprecedented convergence of challenges: exponential load growth from data centers and electrification, rising reliability expectations and an accelerating influx of distributed energy resources (DERs). At DTECH 2026, Feb. 2-5 in San Diego, OATI will showcase how utilities can turn these pressures into opportunities through a simple, unifying concept: flexibility. “Flexibility is no longer optional — it’s the operating principle of the modern grid,” says Sasan Mokhtari, OATI’s president & CEO. “The future belongs to the utilities that can orchestrate DERs, manage load growth intelligently and connect operations from meters to markets.” 1. From DER chaos to DERMS clarity Distributed Energy Resource Management Systems (DERMS) have evolved from niche pilots to mission-critical platforms. OATI would know—we deployed the first DERMS in North America in 2009 and created what would define a generation of grid modernization. What was once an experiment in aggregation is now the foundation of reliable, data-driven grid management. Modern DERMS platforms, like OATI DERMS, enable utilities to see, forecast and control a complex web of rooftop solar, battery storage, EV chargers and flexible loads in real time. They bring together three critical capabilities: Visibility — a unified picture of all DERs across the grid Optimization — dispatch decisions that balance economics, carbon and reliability Market Integration — the ability to monetize flexibility through participation in wholesale markets At DTECH 2026, OATI will demonstrate how its DERMS platform bridges the divide between bulk power and distribution operations, uniting IT and OT operations and helping utilities truly manage the grid from meters to markets. 2. The new face of load growth: Data centers, EVs and electrification The growth of data centers and electric transportation is transforming grid demand faster than many planners ever imagined. In 2024 alone, U.S. data

Solving the AI power puzzle: Taming data center demand with flexible grid-scale storage

Data centers – the vast, physical warehouses where IT servers and systems are kept – are experiencing a boom in demand, particularly across the USA. Driven by the rapid ascent of AI, analysts project that the global electricity demand for data centers is expected to double by 2030, reaching consumption levels that rival entire developed nations. Still, the challenge goes beyond the sheer volume of power needed. Data centers operate 24/7 and experience pronounced swings in demand which legacy grids simply aren’t engineered to handle. Luckily, answers are emerging. Grid-scale batteries can respond quickly enough to tame this volatile demand, and when properly coordinated by a sophisticated operating system – like Kraken – they can contribute to building a healthier, better-balanced grid overall. Data centers have uniquely volatile demand profiles The fundamental nature of data center electrical loads distinguishes them from traditional industrial consumption, being not just especially large, but unusually “spiky” and unpredictable. When tech companies launch AI training algorithms or massive computing clusters activate, the resulting power draw is instantaneous and intense. This poses a pressing stability problem. The grid’s legacy generators, such as slow-ramping gas-fired peaker plants, aren’t merely relatively expensive and slow to build, but are ultimately technically incapable of matching huge demand spikes that occur in milliseconds. This critical mismatch between fast demand and slow supply results in immediate frequency instability, severe stress on local transmission and distribution networks and significantly higher balancing costs for grid operators (if they can meet that demand at all). And this volatility is only compounded as clusters of data centers concentrate in particular geographical regions. A faster, smarter solution is clearly needed. Coordinating grid-scale storage to tame demand Fortunately, the flexibility afforded by large batteries is well-suited to addressing pronounced immediate swings, charging up whenever energy is cheapest and cleanest

How flexible loads are revolutionizing grid capacity

It’s well known that the electric grid faces a capacity crisis. Energy-intensive operations such as data centers, commercial and industrial electrification and bitcoin mining are driving unprecedented demand while transmission constraints and permitting timelines limit infrastructure expansion. For power suppliers, a critical solution is transforming energy-intensive loads from liabilities into assets through intelligent control. Understanding Controllable Loads Flexible, controllable loads represent a fundamental shift in capacity management. Rather than viewing large industrial customers solely as demand to be met, controllable load technology allows these operations to be part of the larger Distributed Energy Resource Management System (DERMS) ecosystem, effectively increasing generation capacity without building new plants. A controllable load gives grid operators or power suppliers the ability to dynamically adjust consumption in real-time. This capability becomes essential as the grid integrates more intermittent renewable generation and faces tightening capacity margins. The Market Context: Why Now? Several converging forces are driving unprecedented growth in power demand. The number of AI data centers is growing and bitcoin mining continues to scale in deregulated markets. Commercial and industrial (C&I) electrification is accelerating across sectors—from manufacturing facilities converting to electric processes to transportation fleets transitioning to EVs. While surging demand presents the primary challenge, other factors make controllable loads essential for modern grid management: Renewable Integration Volatility: Renewable energy production such as solar and wind fluctuates throughout the day, while transmission constraints prevent power from moving freely between regions, creating price volatility and reliability challenges. Outdated Grid Infrastructure: Traditional infrastructure operates with binary logic—generators on or off, loads consuming or not—clashing with dynamic grid requirements. Evolving Market Structures: Real-time pricing and ancillary service markets reward flexibility. ERCOT’s Controllable Load Resource (CLR) program integrates flexible loads directly into grid dispatch. New Regulatory Requirements: Texas Senate Bill 6 (SB6) is likely to mandate that loads above

At the Crossroads of AI and the Edge: Inside 1623 Farnam’s Rising Role as a Midwest Interconnection Powerhouse

That was the thread that carried through our recent conversation for the DCF Show podcast, where Severn walked through the role Farnam now plays in AI-driven networking, multi-cloud connectivity, and the resurgence of regional interconnection as a core part of U.S. digital infrastructure. Aggregation, Not Proximity: The Practical Edge Severn is clear-eyed about what makes the edge work and what doesn’t. The idea that real content delivery could aggregate at the base of cell towers, he noted, has never been realistic. The traffic simply isn’t there. Content goes where the network already concentrates, and the network concentrates where carriers, broadband providers, cloud onramps, and CDNs have amassed critical mass. In Farnam’s case, that density has grown steadily since the building changed hands in 2018. At the time an “underappreciated asset,” the facility has since become a meeting point for more than 40 broadband providers and over 60 carriers, with major content operators and hyperscale platforms routing traffic directly through its MMRs. That aggregation effect feeds on itself; as more carrier and content traffic converges, more participants anchor themselves to the hub, increasing its gravitational pull. Geography only reinforces that position. Located on the 41st parallel, the building sits at the historical shortest-distance path for early transcontinental fiber routes. It also lies at the crossroads of major east–west and north–south paths that have made Omaha a natural meeting point for backhaul routes and hyperscale expansions across the Midwest. AI and the New Interconnection Economy Perhaps the clearest sign of Farnam’s changing role is the sheer volume of fiber entering the building. More than 5,000 new strands are being brought into the property, with another 5,000 strands being added internally within the Meet-Me Rooms in 2025 alone. These are not incremental upgrades—they are hyperscale-grade expansions driven by the demands of AI traffic,

Schneider Electric’s $2.3 Billion in AI Power and Cooling Deals Sends Message to Data Center Sector

When Schneider Electric emerged from its 2025 North American Innovation Summit in Las Vegas last week with nearly $2.3 billion in fresh U.S. data center commitments, it didn’t just notch a big sales win. It arguably put a stake in the ground about who controls the AI power-and-cooling stack over the rest of this decade. Within a single news cycle, Schneider announced: Together, the deals total about $2.27 billion in U.S. data center infrastructure, a number Schneider confirmed in background with multiple outlets and which Reuters highlighted as a bellwether for AI-driven demand. For the AI data center ecosystem, these contracts function like early-stage fuel supply deals for the power and cooling systems that underpin the “AI factory.” Supply Capacity Agreements: Locking in the AI Supply Chain Significantly, both deals are structured as supply capacity agreements, not traditional one-off equipment purchase orders. Under the SCA model, Schneider is committing dedicated manufacturing lines and inventory to these customers, guaranteeing output of power and cooling systems over a multi-year horizon. In return, Switch and Digital Realty are providing Schneider with forecastable volume and visibility at the scale of gigawatt-class campus build-outs. A Schneider spokesperson told Reuters that the two contracts are phased across 2025 and 2026, underscoring that this arrangement is about pipeline, as opposed to a one-time backlog spike. That structure does three important things for the market: Signals confidence that AI demand is durable.You don’t ring-fence billions of dollars of factory output for two customers unless you’re highly confident the AI load curve runs beyond the current GPU cycle. Pre-allocates power & cooling the way the industry pre-allocated GPUs.Hyperscalers and neoclouds have already spent two years locking up Nvidia and AMD capacity. These SCAs suggest power trains and thermal systems are joining chips on the list of constrained strategic resources.

The Data Center Power Squeeze: Mapping the Real Limits of AI-Scale Growth

As we all know, the data center industry is at a crossroads. As artificial intelligence reshapes the already insatiable digital landscape, the demand for computing power is surging at a pace that outstrips the growth of the US electric grid. As engines of the AI economy, an estimated 1,000 new data centers1 are needed to process, store, and analyze the vast datasets that run everything from generative models to autonomous systems. But this transformation comes with a steep price and the new defining criteria for real estate: power. Our appetite for electricity is now the single greatest constraint on our expansion, threatening to stall the very innovation we enable. In 2024, US data centers consumed roughly 4% of the nation’s total electricity, a figure that is projected to triple by 2030, reaching 12% or more.2 For AI-driven hyperscale facilities, the numbers are even more staggering. With the largest planned data centers requiring gigawatts of power, enough to supply entire cities, the cumulative demand from all data centers is expected to reach 134 gigawatts by 2030, nearly three times the current load.3 This presents a systemic challenge. The U.S. power grid, built for a different era, is struggling to keep pace. Utilities are reporting record interconnection requests, with some regions seeing demand projections that exceed their total system capacity by fivefold.4 In Virginia and Texas, the epicenters of data center expansion, grid operators are warning of tight supply-demand balances and the risk of blackouts during peak periods.5 The problem is not just the sheer volume of power needed, but the speed at which it must be delivered. Data center operators are racing to secure power for projects that could be online in as little as 18 months, but grid upgrades and new generation can take years, if not decades. The result

The Future of Hyperscale: Neoverse Joins NVLink Fusion as SC25 Accelerates Rack-Scale AI Architectures

Neoverse’s Expanding Footprint and the Power-Efficiency Imperative With Neoverse deployments now approaching roughly 50% of all compute shipped into top hyperscalers in 2025 (representing more than a billion Arm cores) and with nation-scale AI campuses such as the Stargate project already anchored on Arm compute, the addition of NVLink Fusion becomes a pivotal extension of the Neoverse roadmap. Partners can now connect custom Arm CPUs to their preferred NVIDIA accelerators across a coherent, high-bandwidth, rack-scale fabric. Arm characterized the shift as a generational inflection point in data-center architecture, noting that “power—not FLOPs—is the bottleneck,” and that future design priorities hinge on maximizing “intelligence per watt.” Ian Buck, vice president and general manager of accelerated computing at NVIDIA, underscored the practical impact: “Folks building their own Arm CPU, or using an Arm IP, can actually have access to NVLink Fusion—be able to connect that Arm CPU to an NVIDIA GPU or to the rest of the NVLink ecosystem—and that’s happening at the racks and scale-up infrastructure.” Despite the expanded design flexibility, this is not being positioned as an open interconnect ecosystem. NVIDIA continues to control the NVLink Fusion fabric, and all connections ultimately run through NVIDIA’s architecture. For data-center planners, the SC25 announcement translates into several concrete implications: 1. NVIDIA “Grace-style” Racks Without Buying Grace With NVLink Fusion now baked into Neoverse, hyperscalers and sovereign operators can design their own Arm-based control-plane or pre-processing CPUs that attach coherently to NVIDIA GPU domains—such as NVL72 racks or HGX B200/B300 systems—without relying on Grace CPUs. A rack-level architecture might now resemble: Custom Neoverse SoC for ingest, orchestration, agent logic, and pre/post-processing NVLink Fusion fabric Blackwell GPU islands and/or NVLink-attached custom accelerators (Marvell, MediaTek, others) This decouples CPU choice from NVIDIA’s GPU roadmap while retaining the full NVLink fabric. In practice, it also opens

Flex’s Integrated Data Center Bet: How a Manufacturing Giant Plans to Reshape AI-Scale Infrastructure

At this year’s OCP Global Summit, Flex made a declaration that resonated across the industry: the era of slow, bespoke data center construction is over. AI isn’t just stressing the grid or forcing new cooling techniques—it’s overwhelming the entire design-build process. To meet this moment, Flex introduced a globally manufactured, fully integrated data center platform aimed directly at multi-gigawatt AI campuses. The company claims it can cut deployment timelines by as much as 30 percent by shifting integration upstream into the factory and unifying power, cooling, compute, and lifecycle services into pre-engineered modules. This is not a repositioning on the margins. Flex is effectively asserting that the future hyperscale data center will be manufactured like a complex industrial system, not built like a construction project. On the latest episode of The Data Center Frontier Show, we spoke with Rob Campbell, President of Flex Communications, Enterprise & Cloud, and Chris Butler, President of Flex Power, about why Flex believes this new approach is not only viable but necessary in the age of AI. The discussion revealed a company leaning heavily on its global manufacturing footprint, its cross-industry experience, and its expanding cooling and power technology stack to redefine what deployment speed and integration can look like at scale. AI Has Broken the Old Data Center Model From the outset, Campbell and Butler made clear that Flex’s strategy is a response to a structural shift. AI workloads no longer allow power, cooling, and compute to evolve independently. Densities have jumped so quickly—and thermals have risen so sharply—that the white space, gray space, and power yard are now interdependent engineering challenges. Higher chip TDPs, liquid-cooled racks approaching one to two megawatts, and the need to assemble entire campuses in record time have revealed deep fragility in traditional workflows. As Butler put it, AI

Data Center Jobs: Engineering, Construction, Commissioning, Sales, Field Service and Facility Tech Jobs Available in Major Data Center Hotspots

Each month Data Center Frontier, in partnership with Pkaza, posts some of the hottest data center career opportunities in the market. Here’s a look at some of the latest data center jobs posted on the Data Center Frontier jobs board, powered by Pkaza Critical Facilities Recruiting. Looking for Data Center Candidates? Check out Pkaza’s Active Candidate / Featured Candidate Hotlist Data Center Facility Technician (All Shifts Available) Impact, TX This position is also available in: Ashburn, VA; Abilene, TX; Needham, MA and New York, NY. Navy Nuke / Military Vets leaving service accepted! This opportunity is working with a leading mission-critical data center provider. This firm provides data center solutions custom-fit to the requirements of their client’s mission-critical operational facilities. They provide reliability of mission-critical facilities for many of the world’s largest organizations facilities supporting enterprise clients, colo providers and hyperscale companies. This opportunity provides a career-growth minded role with exciting projects with leading-edge technology and innovation as well as competitive salaries and benefits. Electrical Commissioning Engineer Montvale, NJ This traveling position is also available in: New York, NY; White Plains, NY; Richmond, VA; Ashburn, VA; Charlotte, NC; Atlanta, GA; Hampton, GA; Fayetteville, GA; New Albany, OH; Cedar Rapids, IA; Phoenix, AZ; Salt Lake City, UT; Dallas, TX or Chicago, IL. *** ALSO looking for a LEAD EE and ME CxA Agents and CxA PMs. *** Our client is an engineering design and commissioning company that has a national footprint and specializes in MEP critical facilities design. They provide design, commissioning, consulting and management expertise in the critical facilities space. They have a mindset to provide reliability, energy efficiency, sustainable design and LEED expertise when providing these consulting services for enterprise, colocation and hyperscale companies. This career-growth minded opportunity offers exciting projects with leading-edge technology and innovation as well as competitive salaries and

Microsoft will invest $80B in AI data centers in fiscal 2025

And Microsoft isn’t the only one that is ramping up its investments into AI-enabled data centers. Rival cloud service providers are all investing in either upgrading or opening new data centers to capture a larger chunk of business from developers and users of large language models (LLMs). In a report published in October 2024, Bloomberg Intelligence estimated that demand for generative AI would push Microsoft, AWS, Google, Oracle, Meta, and Apple would between them devote $200 billion to capex in 2025, up from $110 billion in 2023. Microsoft is one of the biggest spenders, followed closely by Google and AWS, Bloomberg Intelligence said. Its estimate of Microsoft’s capital spending on AI, at $62.4 billion for calendar 2025, is lower than Smith’s claim that the company will invest $80 billion in the fiscal year to June 30, 2025. Both figures, though, are way higher than Microsoft’s 2020 capital expenditure of “just” $17.6 billion. The majority of the increased spending is tied to cloud services and the expansion of AI infrastructure needed to provide compute capacity for OpenAI workloads. Separately, last October Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said his company planned total capex spend of $75 billion in 2024 and even more in 2025, with much of it going to AWS, its cloud computing division.

John Deere unveils more autonomous farm machines to address skill labor shortage

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More Self-driving tractors might be the path to self-driving cars. John Deere has revealed a new line of autonomous machines and tech across agriculture, construction and commercial landscaping. The Moline, Illinois-based John Deere has been in business for 187 years, yet it’s been a regular as a non-tech company showing off technology at the big tech trade show in Las Vegas and is back at CES 2025 with more autonomous tractors and other vehicles. This is not something we usually cover, but John Deere has a lot of data that is interesting in the big picture of tech. The message from the company is that there aren’t enough skilled farm laborers to do the work that its customers need. It’s been a challenge for most of the last two decades, said Jahmy Hindman, CTO at John Deere, in a briefing. Much of the tech will come this fall and after that. He noted that the average farmer in the U.S. is over 58 and works 12 to 18 hours a day to grow food for us. And he said the American Farm Bureau Federation estimates there are roughly 2.4 million farm jobs that need to be filled annually; and the agricultural work force continues to shrink. (This is my hint to the anti-immigration crowd). John Deere’s autonomous 9RX Tractor. Farmers can oversee it using an app. While each of these industries experiences their own set of challenges, a commonality across all is skilled labor availability. In construction, about 80% percent of contractors struggle to find skilled labor. And in commercial landscaping, 86% of landscaping business owners can’t find labor to fill open positions, he said. “They have to figure out how to do

2025 playbook for enterprise AI success, from agents to evals

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More 2025 is poised to be a pivotal year for enterprise AI. The past year has seen rapid innovation, and this year will see the same. This has made it more critical than ever to revisit your AI strategy to stay competitive and create value for your customers. From scaling AI agents to optimizing costs, here are the five critical areas enterprises should prioritize for their AI strategy this year. 1. Agents: the next generation of automation AI agents are no longer theoretical. In 2025, they’re indispensable tools for enterprises looking to streamline operations and enhance customer interactions. Unlike traditional software, agents powered by large language models (LLMs) can make nuanced decisions, navigate complex multi-step tasks, and integrate seamlessly with tools and APIs. At the start of 2024, agents were not ready for prime time, making frustrating mistakes like hallucinating URLs. They started getting better as frontier large language models themselves improved. “Let me put it this way,” said Sam Witteveen, cofounder of Red Dragon, a company that develops agents for companies, and that recently reviewed the 48 agents it built last year. “Interestingly, the ones that we built at the start of the year, a lot of those worked way better at the end of the year just because the models got better.” Witteveen shared this in the video podcast we filmed to discuss these five big trends in detail. Models are getting better and hallucinating less, and they’re also being trained to do agentic tasks. Another feature that the model providers are researching is a way to use the LLM as a judge, and as models get cheaper (something we’ll cover below), companies can use three or more models to

OpenAI’s red teaming innovations define new essentials for security leaders in the AI era

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More OpenAI has taken a more aggressive approach to red teaming than its AI competitors, demonstrating its security teams’ advanced capabilities in two areas: multi-step reinforcement and external red teaming. OpenAI recently released two papers that set a new competitive standard for improving the quality, reliability and safety of AI models in these two techniques and more. The first paper, “OpenAI’s Approach to External Red Teaming for AI Models and Systems,” reports that specialized teams outside the company have proven effective in uncovering vulnerabilities that might otherwise have made it into a released model because in-house testing techniques may have missed them. In the second paper, “Diverse and Effective Red Teaming with Auto-Generated Rewards and Multi-Step Reinforcement Learning,” OpenAI introduces an automated framework that relies on iterative reinforcement learning to generate a broad spectrum of novel, wide-ranging attacks. Going all-in on red teaming pays practical, competitive dividends It’s encouraging to see competitive intensity in red teaming growing among AI companies. When Anthropic released its AI red team guidelines in June of last year, it joined AI providers including Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, OpenAI, and even the U.S.’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which all had released red teaming frameworks. Investing heavily in red teaming yields tangible benefits for security leaders in any organization. OpenAI’s paper on external red teaming provides a detailed analysis of how the company strives to create specialized external teams that include cybersecurity and subject matter experts. The goal is to see if knowledgeable external teams can defeat models’ security perimeters and find gaps in their security, biases and controls that prompt-based testing couldn’t find. What makes OpenAI’s recent papers noteworthy is how well they define using human-in-the-middle

Stay Ahead, Stay ONMINE