Data Centers Are Not the Problem. Bad Policy Is.

By Scott Lincicome of Cato. 

"there are actually many different types"

"data centers have been around for decades, and there are thousands already operating in the United States. They’re basically any “purpose-built building that runs large numbers of computers reliably, securely and around the clock,”"

"Several regional and national studies have found little merit to the common claim that data centers have already caused large, localized increases in Americans’ electricity bills. In fact, a brand new, peer-reviewed study found that data centers actually caused average U.S. retail electricity rates to “fall modestly” between 2015 and 2024, because the centers’ high, steady power demand helped spread a grid’s fixed costs over more usage. This finding is counterintuitive but consistent with research from 2025 that high-demand areas—including ones like North Dakota and Virginia that saw an explosion of data centers—“saw lower prices overall,” while prices rose in places like California where demand had declined"

"arguably the most viral water claim—that a single Google data center in Chile consumed more than 1,000 times the water supply of a town there—was later acknowledged by its author to be “off by a magnitude of 1,000.” They added that all U.S. data centers combined use less than 0.5 percent of the United States’ freshwater, and that “Google’s thirstiest facility, in Iowa, uses approximately what some golf courses do.”"

"U.S. data centers consumed about 17.5 billion gallons of water in 2023, according to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. That sounds like a lot until you compare it with total public water supply: it’s about 0.3 percent. Beef production, cotton farming, and golf courses each quietly consume far more"

"a lot of “data center water usage” stats in various studies include non-potable water, indirect usage from nearby power plants, and water actually recirculated instead of consumed (thus causing little change to local supplies). Doing this can inflate water usage stats"

"Masley estimates that the water all American data centers will directly consume onsite in 2030 will be the equivalent of just 8 percent of U.S. golf industry usage and just 1 percent of the water used for American corn production. It’s also dwarfed by industrial usage for things like steel plants."

"The 100 billion gallons used in 2023 amount to a drop in the bucket (pun!) compared to what we use each year for golf courses (550 billion gallons) and lawns (3 trillion gallons)."

"data centers aren’t major sources of water pollution in host communities, mainly because most of their usage (e.g., for cooling) is in closed systems."

"Masley has since run the same exercise on land use and waste heat, reaching similarly benign conclusions. Air pollution too. The Taxpayers Protection Alliance, meanwhile, has debunked recent online claims that data centers generate intolerable ambient noise." (AI researcher Andy Masley has done yeoman’s work eon “data center water usage)

The source of the real problems. And how to fix them.

"None of this means data centers are perfect, and it’d be intellectually lazy to claim the pushback is entirely manufactured (though some of it surely is). Where real problems exist, however, the cause is almost always a policy choice rather than an immutable feature of data centers or AI. And that means the issues can be fixed with policy, too.

The most obvious place to start is by nixing all the subsidies that certain states and localities toss at data center projects—and their billionaire owners. Virginia’s data center sales and use tax exemption, for example, cost more than $1 billion in 2024 and is projected to cost almost double that in 2025, with benefits accruing to Google, Amazon, and other bajillion-dollar companies. Indiana’s subsidies are almost as big. Given demand for AI and every other internet-based service in the United States, these data centers will be built without all the subsidies. So, much like sports stadiums and corporate relocation incentives, the handouts are less about real economic development and more about companies playing states and localities against each other to get the sweetest deal for themselves—at taxpayers’ expense. Kill ’em all. The industry doesn’t need the help, and every subsidy dollar is one that not only diminishes data centers’ tax revenue benefits but also fuels a legitimate grievance by the pro-moratorium crowd—maybe their only legitimate grievance.

The next obvious solution is to liberalize the supply side of the electricity market, where the only serious economic risk likely exists. As Pielke notes, various studies confirm that local power prices wouldn’t rise if supply could meet new demand, yet—

The constraint is our national inability to build—hampered by permitting queues and interconnection backlogs that mean that new transmission takes six to 10 years to build—while new demand emerges much faster. A moratorium seeks to freeze demand to match a sclerotic supply side. A better response speeds the creation of supply to meet demand. That means permitting reform, faster interconnection, advanced transmission, and water system investment, including new supply. Blocking construction treats the symptom rather than the disease.

Other things, such as tariffs on transformers, electrical steel, solar panels, and other essential equipment, add to these burdens. Fix them, and some of the demand-side pressure from data centers will be released.

For the rest, Cato’s Travis Fisher and Huddleston have an even better idea: Let data center developers contract directly with private generators or build their own power, through “consumer-regulated electricity” (CRE) reforms:

[CREs] allow for privately financed, off-grid electric utilities to serve new customers under voluntary contracts. These utilities would be physically “islanded” from the regulated grid and would not be subject to economic regulation at the state or federal level. Because they would not interconnect with incumbent systems, CRE utilities would impose no costs, reliability risks, or stranded-asset exposure on existing customers.

Letting these giant, cash-rich companies pay their own way makes abundant (pun!) sense, yet utility regulations and related factors make that impossible in most places. And that, not data center demand, is the problem. Fortunately, as Fisher writes, there are some positive developments in this regard: A few states have already begun experimenting with CRE, and the White House’s voluntary Ratepayer Protection Pledge, signed by most hyperscalers, gestures at similar principles. But much more needs to be done—and fast.

Other data center issues, such as noise, pollution, and land use, have a simpler solution: localities enforcing the relevant laws they already have on the books and making local decisions about whether to permit data centers in their communities. NIMBYism drives a lot of the opposition to data center projects, and I think almost all of it is wrong. The bright side, however, is that it’s an exercise of local control, not a statewide or federal moratorium that blocks an entire industry. In the former case, a data center can move to more welcoming U.S. areas that will enjoy the direct benefits—and occasional headaches—that rapid development offers, while negotiating site-specific terms and mitigation directly with developers, the way Loudoun County did. America’s great Laboratories of Democracy can do their thing.

As Huddleston notes, on the other hand, turning a local land-use dispute into a federal ban would throw out the baby with the bathwater, generating economic harms that go far beyond a few NIMBY-captured communities."