Reason: Politicians from both parties exploit public panic over data center construction

Politicians generally operate within their partisan bubbles, staking out poll-tested positions that conform to the political lean of their districts and the priorities of their party. Once in a while, though, an issue so upsets the public that it transcends partisanship. Then all bets are off, as lawmakers try desperately to placate those proverbial "peasants with pitchforks."

The latest example involves the construction of data centers. Voters—and hence politicians on the political left and right—are incensed about the construction of large facilities that house computers, networking equipment, servers, and storage systems supporting the tech economy and the growth of Artificial Intelligence (AI). It is hard to understand the level of upset, given that these facilities are necessary to power industries that drive our economy and fund state budgets.

A Contrast with the Past

The author grew up in Pennsylvania in the 1970s, where the hulks of the industrial revolution—giant steel mills, oil refineries, and clanking, pollution-spewing factories—loomed over communities. By contrast, today's data centers are clean, low-slung, and quiet facilities. Although large, they are generally tucked away in tidy industrial parks near freeways and away from neighborhoods. If we want easy access to computer innovations, we need to make peace with these less-intrusive facilities.

Public Opposition and Political Response

Yet a Gallup Poll from May found that "53% of Americans say they oppose building a nuclear energy plant in their area, far less than the 71% opposed to data center construction." The author lives near the cooling towers of Rancho Seco, which was shuttered in 1989 after a referendum. Protests against that nuclear plant started in the late 1970s following the Three Mile Island accident. The author was sent home from a nearby Pennsylvania college after that fiasco, and finds it astounding that people are more fearful of benign data centers than radioactive fallout.

Data-center concerns are so severe that they have affected Democratic primaries in the upper Midwest. In Texas—where pouring concrete to build freeways, constructing massive natural-gas pipelines, and digging oil wells is a great source of local pride—Republican Gov. Greg Abbott last month ordered an audit of hundreds of proposed data centers, imposing new regulatory hurdles that will delay and perhaps stop some of them. This is in response to angry residents who have shown up in droves at city council and planning commission meetings.

California's Legislative Response

In the San Francisco Bay Area, local governments have approved some of these centers with relatively little pushback because residents understand their necessity for bolstering jobs and the economy. However, the state Legislature passed Senate Bill 886, which "requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to establish tariffs that address costs associated with transmission, distribution, generation, and interconnection services for data centers." Supporters argue that it is necessary to keep these centers from boosting rates for other consumers.

Counterarguments on Costs and Water Usage

The author argues that this reasoning is flawed. The Electric Power Research Institute found that data centers generally decrease retail power rates by 4 percent. Electric utilities have massive fixed costs (electrical lines, generators, etc.) that are spread across the base of existing customers. As more customers leave the grid to install solar, that raises rates for remaining customers. Data centers assume a larger portion of those costs, which takes some pressure off residential and commercial consumers.

Critics also worry about data-center water usage to cool servers, but that too is misleading. Data centers can use as much water as a small city, but they increasingly rely on recycled water and closed-loop water systems that result in minimal water loss. Data centers withdraw around 0.4 percent of the nation's water supplies, which is a pittance compared to agriculture. The best solution is for states to start doing what they have neglected: building the necessary water infrastructure.