It feels to me that a good governor would lay out the benefits to the state that must be achieved if we're going to build out these data centers. I'd start with something like this :
* Water security (funding desalination plants that equal in capacity the amount of fresh water locked up by data centers). this could be in the form of a tax increment or an apportionment of property taxes or fees or contractual agreements
* grid investment. what portion of grid investment must be completed before a given data center turns on
* light pollution. local regulations should win on light pollution. state establishes minimum requirements, but allows for stricter local regs. including things like red lights, bat- and bird-friendly and night-vision-friendly solutions.
* noise pollution - again state should set the floor, but local governments should have power to set higher standards.
* property tax revenues have to yield more funding for the schools in the districts in which these Data Centers are built, rather than go to state coffers.
this is about creating local benefits. if we do that, there's a good deal to be made.
I agree. The problem shows up in your first few words: we have leaders who don't trust that voters are adults who can be reasoned with, but instead feed into fears and misinformation. For their parts, ERCOT and the utilities in Austin seem to be more clear-eyed about the issue and what can be done about it, but they need the politicians to set the tone and the policy agenda.
Our current leaders - in government - actually don't care about the voters, they are just making deals in exchange for campaign cash, for political support, and personal enrichment. this is basically the BRAND of one of our political parties that happens to have run texas for the last 30+years.
I am hopeful that new leadership will pivot to more rational governing once the election is past. not outright bans, but good policy-making about what the local benefits from DC's should be. But it starts with stopping them - so that you have leverage and time to sort it out. You don't negotiate good deals while the horse is running free out of the barn, that's been the Abbott approach and it has worked well for him personally, and not well for Texans generally.
Blanket bans just push data centers onto the places with no ability to say no, which was my unpopular take when Maine's moratorium got vetoed in April. I'd rather every community share the burden under rules that measure the water and power and regulate them. A Gallup poll where people would rather live next to a nuclear plant than a data center is wild lol
Great take on the spiciest land use topic today. Governments should almost never ban specific land uses, but they should tax externalities
And as you describe, they should create rules that prevent problems from occurring in the first place. I love your proposal for up-front grid studies and mandatory infrastructure investments. Since energy use really seems to be a challenge, I’m happy to have the hyperscalers pay for the grid upgrades they require. That could ultimately benefit more consumers as grids get modernized on the backs of the data center boom
It doesn’t help in the era of polarized politics that Trump has decided to uncritically support data centers because “China will build them otherwise.” Though that’s sort of true, his argument isn’t nearly as appealing as “data centers will lower your property tax rates and pay for the infrastructure they demand”
It feels to me that a good governor would lay out the benefits to the state that must be achieved if we're going to build out these data centers. I'd start with something like this :
* Water security (funding desalination plants that equal in capacity the amount of fresh water locked up by data centers). this could be in the form of a tax increment or an apportionment of property taxes or fees or contractual agreements
* grid investment. what portion of grid investment must be completed before a given data center turns on
* light pollution. local regulations should win on light pollution. state establishes minimum requirements, but allows for stricter local regs. including things like red lights, bat- and bird-friendly and night-vision-friendly solutions.
* noise pollution - again state should set the floor, but local governments should have power to set higher standards.
* property tax revenues have to yield more funding for the schools in the districts in which these Data Centers are built, rather than go to state coffers.
this is about creating local benefits. if we do that, there's a good deal to be made.
I agree. The problem shows up in your first few words: we have leaders who don't trust that voters are adults who can be reasoned with, but instead feed into fears and misinformation. For their parts, ERCOT and the utilities in Austin seem to be more clear-eyed about the issue and what can be done about it, but they need the politicians to set the tone and the policy agenda.
I separate campaign mode from governing mode.
Our current leaders - in government - actually don't care about the voters, they are just making deals in exchange for campaign cash, for political support, and personal enrichment. this is basically the BRAND of one of our political parties that happens to have run texas for the last 30+years.
I am hopeful that new leadership will pivot to more rational governing once the election is past. not outright bans, but good policy-making about what the local benefits from DC's should be. But it starts with stopping them - so that you have leverage and time to sort it out. You don't negotiate good deals while the horse is running free out of the barn, that's been the Abbott approach and it has worked well for him personally, and not well for Texans generally.
Blanket bans just push data centers onto the places with no ability to say no, which was my unpopular take when Maine's moratorium got vetoed in April. I'd rather every community share the burden under rules that measure the water and power and regulate them. A Gallup poll where people would rather live next to a nuclear plant than a data center is wild lol
Proving the point that the owners of the data centers are untrustworthy & will take advantage.
This is wildly naive about what ai is going to be used for.
And if ai is already being used, already woven into different processes, then clearly we don't need more data centers for that.
Great take on the spiciest land use topic today. Governments should almost never ban specific land uses, but they should tax externalities
And as you describe, they should create rules that prevent problems from occurring in the first place. I love your proposal for up-front grid studies and mandatory infrastructure investments. Since energy use really seems to be a challenge, I’m happy to have the hyperscalers pay for the grid upgrades they require. That could ultimately benefit more consumers as grids get modernized on the backs of the data center boom
It doesn’t help in the era of polarized politics that Trump has decided to uncritically support data centers because “China will build them otherwise.” Though that’s sort of true, his argument isn’t nearly as appealing as “data centers will lower your property tax rates and pay for the infrastructure they demand”