Voters in states from Ohio to Wyoming are turning against the construction of artificial-intelligence data centres, turning a communications issue into a political flashpoint. The backlash has entered mid-term campaigns, with candidates of both parties distancing themselves from projects that were once welcomed by local leaders.
What sparked the opposition?
During a recent interview on CNBC's Squawk Box, pollster Frank Luntz was asked how to "sell data centres to voters". The day before, former President Donald Trump suggested the industry needed "a little public relations help". Both framed the controversy as a matter of messaging, but the deeper issue is the bargain communities are being asked to accept.
Why the growing resistance matters
In Pennsylvania, Governor Josh Shapiro removed AI data centres from the state's fast-track programme, a system that normally coordinates agency reviews to speed large projects. He also mandated local approval, enforceable commitments on power, water and community benefits, and prohibited state agencies from signing nondisclosure agreements that could hide project terms.
The public perceives a pattern where companies reap the upside while localities shoulder long-term burdens, higher electricity bills, infrastructure costs, prolonged construction disruption and pressure on water supplies. Many facilities rely on evaporative cooling, which consumes significant water to dissipate server heat.
"A little public relations help," said former President Donald Trump.
Industry advocates point to investment totals, construction jobs and the strategic need to compete with China. Those benefits are real, yet voters are asking concrete questions: who pays, what remains after construction, and who is accountable if promises are not kept.
What the data show
Gallup found that 71% of Americans oppose an AI data centre in their area. In a survey of 1,566 voters, Veleonis and co/efficient reported that three in four respondents either chose no company or were unsure which company they could trust to operate a centre responsibly. Half of those surveyed cited electricity, water or other environmental effects as the information they wanted.
There are at least 4,000 data centres operating nationwide, with roughly 3,000 more planned or under construction. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, a Department of Energy research lab, estimates that data centres could consume between 9.5% and 15.3% of US electricity by 2030, up from about 4.7% in 2024, roughly double to more than triple today's share.
What could resolve the impasse?
Experts propose a "Capacity Expansion Bargain", a reciprocal deal in which growth adds capacity rather than draining scarce resources. Under such a bargain, developers would pay the costs their projects create, bring new power onto the grid, publish verifiable operating data and strengthen host communities. In return, governments would honour agreed tax and permitting terms and move compliant projects through a clear process and timetable.
Key elements include:
- Separate electricity contracts for each facility, with a minimum payment for reserved capacity and financing of new substations and grid connections.
- Exit fees if a developer abandons a project after commitments have been made.
- Publicly available fact sheets that detail electricity and water use, cooling method, power source, incentives, permanent jobs and contributions to local services.
- Independent verification of operating data after the facility opens.
- Stable tax and permitting rules that remain in place for the life of the investment.
The White House Ratepayer Protection Pledge embraces the principle of cost-allocation, but voluntary promises need binding utility contracts. The experience of American Electric Power Ohio illustrates why. Developers initially sought more than 30,000 megawatts, nearly three times the system's peak demand, before the queue fell to about 13,000 megawatts at the paid-study stage and 5,642 megawatts in signed contracts under the new tariff.
What comes next?
Pennsylvania has already written much of the protective side of this bargain. Adding the reciprocal promise, faster review for projects that pay their own infrastructure costs, add power, secure local approval and accept enforceable disclosure, could create a model for other states.
Both Republicans and Democrats can champion the approach: Republicans as a ratepayer-protection and fiscal-discipline measure, Democrats as an environmental-transparency and corporate-accountability initiative. Governors could welcome investment while assuring residents they will not subsidise the projects.
The test will be whether any state pairs Pennsylvania's protections with a guaranteed speed of review. The first governor to offer both will learn which developers truly mean what they say. If the bargain gains traction, the United States could sustain its AI buildout while giving communities a fairer deal.