Flexibility cuts costs but not necessarily emissions
The researchers ran a model that compared three regional energy grids — the Texas grid, the mid-Atlantic grid, and the Western Interconnection — which together are projected to manage more than 80% of data center demand by 2030. They measured the economic and environmental effects of two factors: how far a center can shift workload within a 24-hour period, and what fraction of work can be shifted.
They found that flexible workloads universally create cost savings compared with grids that don’t support flexible workloads, with reductions ranging from about 2% in the Western Interconnection to 5% on the Texas grid. Cost savings can rise as the share of work that is flexible increases, though the approach has diminishing returns.
“At the start, it’s very easy to shift loads to times that have the cheapest energy generation, so there’s a lot of money on the table,” Senga said. “But as you use up those initial, cheap options, it gets harder to squeeze out benefits.”
On the environmental side, flexibility can lead to investment in renewable infrastructure: When demand shifts to times of day when renewables are active, the value of that infrastructure increases. Specifically, the researchers showed that flexibility can spur solar investment in the mid-Atlantic and the Western Interconnection while pushing wind investment in Texas. (These differences hinge on the relative abundance of wind and sun in each region.)
Yet flexibility does not always generate emissions reductions. In Texas, where wind and solar constitute roughly half of the grid’s projected energy mix, the researchers found that flexible workloads led to emissions reductions of up to 40%. In the other two regions, where coal and gas make up a greater share of the grid, flexible operations led to an increase in emissions of up to 3%.
“This happens because our model is optimizing for costs — meaning the number of investments that are made and how expensive it is to operate different types of generators, be it renewables, natural gas plants, coal plants, nuclear plants, you name it,” Senga said. “And so while it is cost-effective in some cases to shift data center demand to renewables, sometimes this shifting of demand instead recruits more stable base-load fossil plants. This just depends on the underlying economics of renewable and fossil generation.”
Incorporate flexibility from Day 1
This research implies that companies in the business of building data centers should design for flexibility from the outset, since it’s a guaranteed path to savings.
Some types of work are inherently more flexible than others — training AI models can be shifted around more readily than fielding AI queries, for instance. For that reason, flexible data center design may entail a concerted balancing of processes across data centers to maximize flexibility in each location by looking at the type of work that it does.
For companies that are also pursuing emissions reduction goals, flexibility is essential but insufficient on its own. The mix of regional electricity-generation sources and their underlying economics will ultimately determine whether flexibility generates environmental benefits.
“We don’t have a hard number, but in our simulated numerical results, we needed about 50% renewable penetration to see these lower emissions,” Wang said. “If you’re below that, then fossil generation is the dominant system and emissions may increase, even with more flexibility.”
With data centers projected to consume a growing percentage of electricity in coming years, companies and states may benefit from working together to manage demand, the researchers write. If coordinated properly, flexibility can encourage the use of and investment in renewables, cutting emissions while offering significant savings to the operators of data centers. But this result won’t unfold on its own.
“The lesson here is that flexibility has to be built into data center operations from the start, and it has to be paired with strong policy support for clean energy,” Knittel said. “If companies and policymakers work together, flexibility can reduce costs and also accelerate investment in renewables. But without that coordination, we risk locking in more fossil generation instead of moving toward greener infrastructure.”
