By Ray Levy Uyeda
Across the country, politicians are starting to heed the public’s concerns about data centers.
Almost 75% of Americans across the political spectrum oppose constructing data centers near their homes, according to a recent Gallup poll. A majority—63%—are concerned by federal regulatory agencies’ practice of approving projects without first evaluating environmental and public health concerns.
These numbers not only paint a stark picture of the massive backlash to the rapid and rapacious buildout of data processing facilities (some of which consume enough energy to power a midsize city), but they’re also an indicator that the public feels very differently than the corporations pushing for their construction. The country has never been more divided, but on data centers, residents agree: It’s time to pump the brakes.
Communities that are already forced to contend with the consequences of data centers warn of their near-constant noise pollution, voracious consumption of water, and discharge of pollutants into local ecosystems. However, it’s not just environmental concerns that undergird the community-led protests against data center development. Many are also concerned about how data centers come to fruition—often through violations of democratic processes in the form of shadowy backroom deals and nondisclosure agreements. There’s also the continued rise in utility rates at a time when nearly half (49%) of American households don’t make enough money to cover expenses. Americans contend with issues of drought, fossil fuel dependence, and habitat loss. Generational farmland is being gobbled up to prop up acres of data warehouses. The list goes on.
Three years after OpenAI’s artificial intelligence (AI) tool Chat GPT forever changed the world’s orientation to computing, governments are responding to community needs for more information by implementing temporary moratoria on the construction of potentially harmful facilities.
“I would say this is the fastest I’ve ever seen [the legislature] move,” Pricey Harrison, a North Carolina state representative, said about her state’s approach to data-center regulation. “The reaction has been, I think, fast enough to do something about it. Thirty North Carolina municipalities—and counting—have considered or approved data center regulations and moratoria.
Where do other moratoria stand? Here’s what to know.
States catching up with local government
Fourteen states have either introduced, passed, or rejected data center moratoria legislation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. A bill introduced in South Dakota would prevent new construction or expansion of hyperscale data centers for one year. Another in Oklahoma would pause data center construction until November 2029 to allow the legislative body to study impacts. Pennsylvania’s legislature is currently considering a three-year moratorium on new hyperscale centers.
Harrison introduced North Carolina’s legislation on a moratorium, though it didn’t get traction. “My hope was that it was about putting a stop to them until we had the guardrails in place,” Harrison said.
No moratorium has been signed into law at the state level, though one in New York, which would halt data center construction for three years, is sitting on the governor’s desk. Another in Maine was vetoed by Democratic Gov. Janet Mills in April.
In March, Sen. Bernie Sanders and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, introduced federal legislation aimed at curbing the supercharged expansion of data centers, which the officials argue are a threat to millions of jobs and planetary health. Last year, Sanders presented a report to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions that artificial intelligence and automation could replace nearly 100 million jobs in the U.S. over the next decade. For perspective, there are approximately 170 million employed people in the country, per the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The greatest success in passing moratoria has been found at the local level.
The benefit of a moratorium
A moratorium on data center construction and expansion is not a ban. An outright ban has only been achieved in one place in the country: Monterey Park, California. In the June election, 86.3% of voters approved a ban on data centers. “We hope that other communities will use the model set by residents here in Monterey Park as inspiration to stop datacenters from encroaching in their backyard,” Monterey Park city councilmember Jose Sanchez told The Guardian.
As Prism previously reported, corporations benefit enormously when they can build data centers as quickly as possible because it diminishes the risk of public pushback. Companies lobby for environmental agencies to reduce the regulatory review process for construction of destructive facilities, support state legislation that hampers a local government’s ability to implement cautionary legislation, and prevent public officials from discussing ongoing negotiations for permits. By the time the public finds out about a planned facility, cement is already in the ground.
Mitch Jones, managing director of policy and litigation at the government accountability organization Food & Water Watch, told Prism that what’s needed is more information. Construction and operations of data centers have been a black box, and residents need to know what’s happening to their local resources in order to protect themselves.
“The stronger moratoria are the ones that, one, last longer and thus give time; and two, require real detailed studies of the various impacts that data centers have in communities and states,” Jones said. “We don’t believe that these studies can be hurried, or we’re going to get the policy wrong.”
Pushing back against industry talking points
After Mills, Maine’s governor, vetoed the country’s first bipartisan bill on a data center moratorium to favor the construction of a data center in the town of Jay, the company behind the facility pulled out, and cities got to work passing their own moratoria.
Bill Pluecker, a local representative in Maine, told Prism that in May, his town of Warren proposed its own moratorium in response to Mills’ veto. A special town meeting is now scheduled for July 8 to determine whether to enact the moratorium.
“I think she wasn’t nuanced or wasn’t looking at the way that AI and data center development is different than a Walmart going in, or different from what we all really want in Maine,” Pluecker said.
According to Pluecker, this moment of data-center expansion requires more political discernment and a shift in approach to economic stimuli. “Development in any form is preferable over regulation” is the kind of perspective that “holds us back,” Pluecker added, noting that if Mills’ reaction to data centers was any indication, representatives can be easily swayed by the promise of jobs—even when there are no long-term jobs to be found.
According to Food & Water Watch research, one permanent job in the data center industry costs $13 million of investment. In Virginia, which has become ground zero for data center development, a non-data-center job requires an investment of about $137,000. Based on employment records, Food & Water Watch estimated that despite being the hub of data centers in the U.S., fewer than 8,000 people were permanently employed in Virginia data centers. Nationally, there are as few as 23,000 people employed in data centers, according to Jones.
As for moving forward, Harrison is hopeful that voters on either side of the aisle can come together in her usually Republican, industry-friendly state. “I feel very confident that there is bipartisan, widespread support in North Carolina to do something about data centers,” Harrison said. “People are concerned and legislators are hearing from their constituents all over, rural [and] urban. I’m encouraged about potential movements.”
Photo by Aimee: https://www.pexels.com/photo/tower-cranes-on-the-buildings-6309085/
