Why Are Americans Footing the Bill for Data Centers While Corporations Pocket the Profits? The Environmental, Health and Democracy Crisis Behind the AI Boom

INTRODUCTION — WHO GAVE THEM PERMISSION TO CHANGE OUR COMMUNITIES?

Chile, I need America to come to the front of the room. Not just Texas. Not just Virginia. Not just the neighborhoods where construction crews have already arrived. All of us. Because while many working families are trying to figure out how to stretch a paycheck through rent, groceries, healthcare and utility bills, a new industrial buildout is racing through communities under one very expensive promise: artificial intelligence is the future. And apparently, we are all expected to applaud while somebody else decides what that future costs us.

Let me ask an uncomfortable question. If a corporation wants to build a gigantic campus full of servers, why should the public be expected to accept higher utility costs, new transmission lines, water demands, generator exhaust, construction disruption and potential property impacts without knowing exactly what it gets in return? I am not talking about a symbolic ribbon-cutting or a press release with beautiful words about innovation. I mean the actual return on investment for ordinary people. Money. Jobs. Schools. Health protections. Real accountability. A community's quality of life.

This is not the same article as a complaint about Texas electricity rates. This is a national investigation into who gets to decide that an American town becomes part of the AI supply chain; how corporations negotiate with public officials; how the resulting energy and environmental costs are distributed; and what happens when residents discover that their neighborhoods were being discussed long before they were invited into the conversation.

And one thing needs to be clear from the very beginning: I am not going to tell you every data center is poisoning its neighbors, that every company gets a subsidy, or that every secretive negotiation violates the law. Those claims are too sweeping, and the evidence does not support them. What I am going to do is follow the documents, the credible reporting and the voices of people who have already lived through these fights. Because the truth is troubling enough without making anything up.

FIRST, THE SCALE OF THE PROBLEM IS ENORMOUS

Let's talk numbers, because this is where the discussion stops sounding like a little local zoning disagreement. The U.S. Department of Energy reported that data centers consumed roughly 4.4 percent of all electricity used in the United States in 2023. The underlying Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study estimated about 176 terawatt-hours of annual use. By 2028, the projected share could rise to somewhere between 6.7 and 12 percent of national electricity consumption, or roughly 325 to 580 terawatt-hours.

Those are scenarios, not promises that every project will be completed. But even the lower end represents extraordinary growth. Imagine one type of industrial facility expanding rapidly enough to consume a material share of the electricity used by an entire country. Imagine utilities being asked to plan power plants, transformers, substations and transmission lines around demand that could arrive quickly, change suddenly, or disappear if a speculative project never comes to fruition. That is an engineering challenge, an economic challenge and a public governance challenge all rolled into one.

And for anyone wondering whether data centers are only about chatbots, they're not. We use them for hospitals, payroll, cloud storage, online banking, emergency communications, websites, video streaming and everyday applications. A modern society needs computing infrastructure. The question is not whether computing should exist. The question is whether the rules governing this enormous expansion are fair to the people who live near it and the ratepayers who help support the larger electric system.

Developers and public officials often lead with investment amounts in the billions. I understand why. A billion-dollar announcement sounds like a big win. But investment is not the same thing as household income, and construction spending is not the same thing as lasting community prosperity. That distinction should be at the center of every conversation, not buried in the footnotes.

WHO ACTUALLY PAYS FOR THE POWER? FOLLOW THE ELECTRIC BILL

A data center pays a utility for electricity. That much is straightforward. The harder question is what happens when serving that enormous customer requires entirely new infrastructure or makes existing grid capacity more expensive. Electricity is not a simple transaction between a company and a private generator. Power plants, transmission systems, substations and regional markets operate under detailed regulatory rules. Some investments benefit many customers. Others are driven substantially by a particular new load. The way regulators distribute those costs can determine whether other households and businesses pay more.

In Virginia, a major legislative study made the stakes plain. The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission examined data-center growth and concluded that new generation and transmission investments could raise systemwide costs. Its modeling found that a typical Dominion Energy residential customer could see generation- and transmission-related costs increase by an estimated fourteen to thirty-seven dollars per month by 2040, measured in constant dollars, depending on future data-center demand scenarios. This is a projection, not a charge already on every Virginia bill, and it excludes some other utility charges.

Now do the household math. Fourteen dollars a month is 168 dollars a year. Thirty-seven dollars is 444 dollars a year. For a household barely covering medication, childcare or groceries, that is real money. And the households paying more are not automatically receiving ownership shares in the facility that helped create the demand. The important caution is that utilities also provide services and infrastructure benefits across their networks; proving unjust cost shifting requires looking at the actual tariffs, projects and regulatory findings, not just announcing that every rate increase is caused by AI.

Virginia's review also found that existing rate structures were generally allocating current costs appropriately to data centers. That point matters because it prevents us from turning a legitimate concern about future costs into an inaccurate assertion that the industry never pays its bills. The tension is that even when a large customer pays its allocated share, its demand can still drive up the overall cost of supplying everyone. A system can follow its current rules and still leave families facing higher prices.

In Ohio, the Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel helped negotiate a data-center tariff that requires new large centers to pay for at least 85 percent of their contracted power capacity for as long as twelve years, even when they use less. Regulators approved the arrangement in July 2025. Industry groups challenged it. Why is that fight so important? Because a developer might reserve enormous grid capacity, forcing planning and investment, and then use less than promised or leave. A minimum payment requirement is intended to reduce the risk that other customers are stuck with the consequences.

Regional electricity markets add another layer of complexity. PJM, which spans parts of the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest, has faced sharply rising demand projections, with data centers a major factor. When utilities pay more to ensure enough generating capacity will be available, households can ultimately feel those costs. Other influences, including older power plants retiring, new supply delays and market rules, also matter. Honest reporting needs all those facts. The point is not that data centers explain every dollar. The point is that ordinary Americans are being asked to trust a system whose pricing mechanics can be difficult even for experts to follow.

And I want to know who is making the public case in plain English. Where is the neighborhood-specific explanation showing the projected cost without the project, the projected cost with the project, and the amount the developer is contractually required to pay? Where is the independent accounting of whether promises made at approval are still being honored ten years later? Those are not unreasonable demands from people who receive a utility bill every month.

THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT QUESTION — WHAT DOES THE COMMUNITY RECEIVE?

The industry has an answer: construction jobs, permanent technical positions, purchasing from local businesses and tax revenue. Those benefits are real possibilities. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce released an industry-supportive analysis in October 2026 arguing that a typical midsize data center can support substantial economic activity and long-term employment across the wider economy. It highlighted an estimated 740 local careers associated with operations over twenty years in its modeled example, alongside construction employment and regional business activity.

That deserves to be included in the discussion, because a responsible investigation does not hide evidence that complicates the headline. But we also need to inspect what those figures measure. A model that counts indirect and induced jobs is not the same as a tally of people working inside a specific data center after construction is finished. An economic-impact estimate is not a guarantee that a named county will receive that amount of benefit. Communities should ask for direct permanent positions, wage ranges, apprenticeship plans, contracting commitments and the actual local taxes paid after incentives.

Let's talk about incentives. Some states offer sales-tax exemptions for qualifying data-center equipment, and local governments may negotiate other abatements or economic-development arrangements. Supporters say these incentives encourage projects that otherwise might locate elsewhere. Critics ask whether the public is giving away revenue for investments that would have happened anyway. A tax exemption is not identical to a direct cash payment, but foregone tax revenue still has an opportunity cost. Money not collected cannot be spent in precisely the same way as revenue that arrives in the public treasury.

Imagine a school district needing new buses, aging water pipes requiring replacement and residents begging for affordable housing.

Then imagine officials announcing a generous incentive package for a multibillion-dollar project. The relevant question is not simply whether the project sounds impressive. It is whether the net fiscal return—taxes actually received minus public subsidies and public costs—helps the community more than plausible alternatives. That calculation needs to be published before approval, then checked afterward.

And when executives describe 'investment in the community,' I want details. Is there a legally enforceable community-benefits agreement? How many local workers are employed after the construction crews leave? Are those jobs available to residents who need them, or do they require specialized credentials and recruit nationally? What happens if the company sells the campus? Who pays to restore roads damaged during construction? How much electricity and water is contractually reserved? The words 'economic development' should be the beginning of scrutiny, not the end.

The public also needs to distinguish between a genuine return and the avoidance of a worse outcome. If a company pays for a substation that only it needs, that is appropriate cost responsibility, not necessarily an extraordinary gift to residents. If it upgrades infrastructure that genuinely improves reliability for neighboring households, that may provide public value. But the value should be measured, and any continuing household costs should be disclosed. The people who bear risks deserve more than an inspirational video.

WHEN THE PUBLIC FINDS OUT AFTER THE DECISIONS ARE ALREADY MOVING

Now we need to talk about the part that truly bothers me: process. Not every private development discussion is illegal. Officials are sometimes allowed to discuss economic-development negotiations confidentially, and some zoning frameworks permit certain uses without a new vote. But what is legally permitted is not always what residents would consider meaningful community consent. When a project can change a town's physical environment for decades, people should not have to learn about it only after they see surveying crews.

In Effingham County, Georgia, Georgia Public Broadcasting described residents learning about a major proposed OpenAI-linked campus on land already zoned for industrial use. The site was approximately 1,400 acres. County officials said an additional rezoning and related public hearing were not required because the property's longstanding industrial classification permitted the use. Residents challenged how the process unfolded, and three filed a lawsuit in September 2026 alleging improper zoning and secretive dealmaking. Those are allegations in litigation, not judicial findings of misconduct.

The reporting contains an extraordinary illustration of the democratic disconnect. County Manager Tim Callanan defended private negotiations on the grounds that a public negotiation would have drawn opposition based on what he considered misinformation. He described potential jobs, school funding and tax benefits. At a public event, when a resident learned the project was proceeding, the resident reportedly expressed the view that the decision had already happened behind closed doors. This was not a hypothetical social-media complaint. It was a documented encounter between a real community and its public officials.

Think about how that feels from the kitchen table of a working parent. You work your shift, get home, make dinner, check on the children and maybe have enough energy to read one news headline. You are not constantly refreshing county planning documents or monitoring industrial zoning parcels. There may be a perfectly legal notice published somewhere, but that does not mean the people affected actually understood that a massive facility was being planned near them.

Another Georgia case illustrates the power of nondisclosure agreements. In Lowndes County, reporting by Georgia Public Broadcasting and the Ledger-Enquirer described a 719-acre rezoning approved in July 2025 for what was described in meeting records as a large warehouse-type campus. Residents near the Foxborough neighborhood voiced concerns about pollution, flooding, property values, habitat and noise. Later reporting connected the site to discussions with developer DC Blox; the landowner had been asked to maintain confidentiality under a nondisclosure agreement. The reporting did not establish that a final data-center application had been approved. The opacity itself became part of the conflict.

A developer may have legitimate reasons to protect proprietary financing or customer identities. But confidentiality around a negotiation should not erase the public's right to understand land use, environmental impacts, infrastructure demands and public spending. The solution is not necessarily to ban every private conversation. It is to require meaningful disclosure of material community impacts before the government makes binding decisions.

Georgia is not the whole country, either. In Nevada, Associated Press reporting in October 2026 described opposition to a proposed data center in Boulder City, including a plan's shift toward nearby federal land. That raised questions about environmental review, public land and whether development could proceed under processes residents considered outdated or inadequate. Different laws govern federal land and local zoning, but the underlying tension feels familiar: residents are trying to catch up with institutions making decisions at industrial speed.

And in Illinois, October 2026 reporting documented a chaotic Morgan County Commission meeting where members of the public objected to restrictions on comment and three people were ejected. The county was debating whether to extend a data-center moratorium, although the meeting also involved other disputes. An official meeting is not meaningful participation if the public cannot understand the agenda or speak under fair and consistently enforced rules. Any claimed violation of open-meetings law needs legal review, but officials should not confuse procedural minimalism with public trust.

I also want us to stop treating the phrase 'public meeting' as a magic wand. What time is the meeting? Who is at work? Is childcare available? Are documents easy to understand? Can people participate remotely? Are materials translated for the community? Is the vote already effectively decided? A hearing at two on a weekday may technically be open, but working residents can still be functionally excluded. A process needs to be evaluated by whether people can participate, not simply whether a notice exists.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL COST IS BIGGER THAN A SINGLE SMOKESTACK

We need the right word here: ecosystem. Not just the economy, not just the atmosphere. The ecosystem includes water, land, plants, animals, habitats, air quality and the relationships between them. When a large industrial campus consumes land, changes drainage, requires extensive energy infrastructure or affects water availability, those systems can all be part of the conversation. Environmental harm does not always arrive as one dramatic chemical spill. Sometimes it accumulates through changes that were treated separately in different permit applications.

Electricity generation is one major part of the footprint. A data center may purchase renewable electricity or be served by a mix of generation resources. Its equipment does not automatically emit the same amount of pollution as a coal plant. But when its demand encourages additional fossil-fueled generation or prolongs reliance on polluting plants, emissions can occur elsewhere in the electricity system. Accounting for the footprint requires distinguishing direct on-site emissions from indirect generation emissions and understanding what new power resources actually serve the demand.

Cooling is another major issue. Some facilities use water-intensive evaporative systems, while others use closed-loop designs, air cooling or hybrid arrangements. These technologies have different water and energy tradeoffs, and local climate matters. It is inaccurate to assign one universal gallons-per-day figure to every center. It is equally unreasonable for a facility requesting access to a strained water system to refuse meaningful disclosure of expected withdrawals, peak demand and contingency plans during drought.

A serious environmental assessment should describe where the water comes from, whether it is drinking-quality or reclaimed water, whether it returns to the watershed, how it is treated and what happens when availability declines. In an area facing water stress, the fact that a developer can legally purchase water does not answer whether the allocation is wise or equitable. Farmers, households, schools and ecosystems may all depend on the same regional supply.

The land footprint matters too. A large campus can replace fields, forests or other open land with buildings, access roads, substations, stormwater infrastructure and security fencing. The consequences can include habitat fragmentation, altered runoff, loss of tree cover and localized heat impacts. Those effects depend on the site and mitigation measures; not every facility causes all of them. But the public needs maps and site-specific studies, not just artist renderings showing decorative trees along an enormous concrete perimeter.

Noise can become a lasting source of conflict. Cooling equipment, fans, transformers and periodic backup-generator testing produce different types of sound, including low-frequency components that residents may find especially intrusive. Noise standards and setbacks vary by location. The question is not merely whether one decibel reading technically complies with a permit. It is whether a nearby resident can sleep, open a window, spend time outdoors or hear nature in the place they chose to call home.

Even when environmental rules are followed, communities can reasonably ask whether the rules anticipated facilities of this scale and concentration. A standard written around one isolated industrial building may not adequately address a cluster of hyperscale campuses, their cumulative emissions, transmission corridors and shared water demands. That is why cumulative-impact assessments, not just project-by-project checklists, are worth examining.

THE HEALTH QUESTIONS — ESPECIALLY FOR CHILDREN, SENIORS AND PEOPLE ALREADY SICK

This is the portion of the story that I want handled with care, because families deserve seriousness rather than scare tactics. Data centers can have potential health-related exposures associated with diesel generators, fossil-fueled electricity generation, air pollution, noise, traffic and construction dust. But there is a crucial difference between knowing that an exposure is harmful in general and proving that a specific operating data center has caused a particular neighbor's illness. The second claim needs direct measurements, medical evidence and careful investigation.

The Environmental Protection Agency explains that diesel exhaust can contribute to respiratory illness, worsen asthma and aggravate heart and lung conditions. Children and older adults are especially vulnerable. Fine particulate matter can enter deep into the lungs, and some particles can reach the bloodstream. Scientific research links particle exposure with worsened asthma, cardiovascular effects and other serious outcomes. These are well-established concerns about pollution. They are not proof that every backup generator has produced a dangerous exposure in its surrounding community.

A data center's diesel generators may run for testing, maintenance or outages, and their emission controls, permit limits and hours of operation matter. Facilities with many generators deserve careful assessment of cumulative emissions under plausible operating conditions. The local air quality background is important too. A new source in a relatively clean area presents a different exposure context than a new source in a community already burdened by highways, warehouses, power plants and other pollution.

Now consider a grandmother with chronic lung disease, a child with asthma, a person who depends on electrically powered medical equipment, or someone with an autoimmune condition. They may have greater practical vulnerability to degraded air quality, heat, stress or service disruptions. But autoimmune diseases differ widely, and it would be scientifically irresponsible to state that data-center emissions are proven to trigger lupus or every autoimmune illness. We need more site-specific exposure research and more attention to medically vulnerable residents, not unsupported diagnoses.

Noise is also not a minor complaint simply because it does not appear on a utility bill. Persistent environmental noise can interfere with sleep and quality of life. Sleep disruption matters for mental and physical well-being. Whether a given facility's noise level causes a measurable health impact depends on intensity, duration, frequency, building characteristics and exposure. Residents reporting a constant hum deserve measurements over a full day and night, not a brief daytime visit that misses the worst conditions.

The research literature has explicitly called for more empirical study of data-center expansion and human health. That is an important acknowledgment of uncertainty. Scientific gaps do not justify dismissing communities, and they do not justify declaring a health crisis at every proposed site. They justify baseline monitoring before construction, continued measurements after opening and independent access to results. If a facility is as safe as a developer says, credible monitoring can help establish that.

I would like to see environmental-health protections designed around the most vulnerable people, not the healthiest person who can tolerate any disruption. That means evaluating schools, elder-care facilities, hospitals and residential neighborhoods near project boundaries. It means asking whether children play outside near generator exhaust outlets, whether seniors are exposed to nighttime noise and whether neighbors have practical ways to report problems without hiring a lawyer.

And for readers with chronic illnesses: a diagnosis alone does not establish the cause of new symptoms. If a community experiences suspected air-quality problems, documenting dates, odors, noise, weather, medical symptoms and any publicly available monitoring data may help health professionals and regulators investigate. It is possible to take concerns seriously while refusing to make medical claims that the evidence does not support.

THE ECONOMIC JUSTICE PROBLEM — WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO CANNOT MOVE?

Let's talk about mobility, because wealthy households and corporations generally have more choices than ordinary renters. A developer can decide where to put a campus. A large business can negotiate long-term power agreements and tax incentives. A homeowner who has spent thirty years building a life in one neighborhood may not be able to sell and relocate just because the neighboring landscape changes. A renter may have even fewer choices.

People often speak about property values during zoning disputes, but not every proposed project reduces nearby values; credible valuation requires comparable sales, local conditions and time. The larger point is that uncertainty itself imposes costs. A family may spend time at hearings, retain legal counsel, commission noise measurements or organize neighbors. Those efforts represent unpaid labor. The people doing that work are often the same ones handling caregiving, jobs and rising household expenses.

Environmental justice also includes unequal ability to influence decisions. Some neighborhoods have well-funded associations, experienced land-use attorneys and residents with flexible work schedules. Others are made up of people who work evenings, speak languages not reflected in government documents, rely on public transit or live with disabilities. Equal notice on paper is not necessarily equal access in practice.

And when policymakers calculate benefits, I want them to include the costs residents bear even if those costs never appear in a government's budget. Lost sleep. Time away from work. Stress about a child's breathing. Hours spent learning zoning law. The possibility of living next to industrial-scale noise. These are difficult to monetize, but pretending their value is zero is not an honest analysis.

The developers' economic models should withstand the same scrutiny as environmental models. If they claim a project will support hundreds of jobs, distinguish construction labor from permanent positions, and direct jobs from indirect estimates. If they promise tax relief, show the expected change in actual household taxes and the assumptions required for that outcome. If they promise to fund schools, clarify whether the money is contractual, discretionary or dependent on future revenue.

WHAT A BETTER DEAL FOR AMERICANS WOULD REQUIRE

First, large new facilities should face transparent rules for covering costs directly attributable to their own grid connections. Where transmission upgrades benefit multiple users, independent regulators should explain how the cost is divided and why. Contracts could include minimum payments, performance requirements and financial security so abandoned or undersized projects do not leave other customers facing avoidable costs. Ohio's large-load tariff illustrates one approach; its design should still be evaluated against actual results.

Second, any significant public incentive should come with a plain-language fiscal statement available before approval. Show the value of the exemption, the projected revenues and the expected costs to schools, utilities, water systems and local roads. Publish annual outcomes afterward. If companies miss agreed job or investment targets, contracts can include clawback provisions where legally appropriate. Public money should purchase measurable public value.

Third, affected residents should receive direct, accessible notice early in the process. Do not rely solely on a technical notice that only a land-use attorney would recognize. Use mailed notices, online meetings, evening hearings and accessible materials. Require disclosure of the approximate scale, electricity demand, water demand, emissions, noise, financing incentives and infrastructure plans while there is still time for public feedback to change the outcome.

Fourth, communities need baseline environmental measurements and independent monitoring. Before construction, establish air and water conditions. After opening, monitor relevant pollutants and noise using methods suited to the actual equipment and local geography. Publish nonconfidential results. Investigate complaints promptly. Put enforceable limits into permits when warranted by the evidence, and assess multiple nearby facilities together instead of treating each application as if no other industrial activity exists.

Fifth, planners should examine alternatives. Can the facility use reclaimed water? Can cooling technology reduce local freshwater demand? Can clean energy additions and storage reduce emissions and improve reliability? Can high-efficiency equipment reduce the scale of the requested load? Can the site be moved away from schools and residences? Can existing transmission corridors be used instead of creating new ones? Not every alternative will work for every location, but a serious review should show the tradeoffs.

Sixth, communities deserve a credible appeal process when approvals are challenged. Litigation should not be the only realistic way for residents to learn what government promised a developer. Public-records systems, independent oversight and clearly written decision documents are basic protections. And when officials invoke economic-development confidentiality, they should explain what information is confidential, under which law and when public disclosure becomes required.

Finally, elected officials should stop presenting every data-center proposal as a choice between progress and ignorance. People can support internet infrastructure and still demand affordability, environmental protection and genuine public participation. In fact, those demands can make development more durable because projects built on trust face less backlash than projects built on surprise.

WHAT INDUSTRY LEADERS SAY — AND WHY IT DOES NOT END THE DEBATE

The industry argues that data centers are essential infrastructure. It is not wrong. Hospitals use digital systems. Small businesses use cloud services. Families stream entertainment, store photos and send messages. The U.S. Chamber's economic analysis stresses jobs, spending and tax revenues. Some operators are also pursuing efficiency improvements, clean energy procurement, water-saving technologies and better public outreach. Those commitments should be assessed against performance, not dismissed automatically.

Executives have also argued that Americans who criticize data centers rely on them every day. Fair point. But people also rely on roads, factories, electricity and hospitals—and still expect reasonable siting decisions, environmental safeguards and transparent public spending. Needing a service does not require accepting every proposed facility in every location under any terms.

A noteworthy shift appeared in October 2026 reporting: major cloud companies have been reconsidering how they engage with host communities. Some are moving away from nondisclosure requirements with local officials and making earlier attempts to explain proposed developments. That would be a welcome improvement if it genuinely changes when and how residents can influence decisions. Public relations is not a substitute for enforceable rights, but better disclosure can be part of a solution.

We should also acknowledge uncertainty about the speed of future AI demand. Energy forecasts are ranges, not destiny. Efficiency improvements could reduce electricity required per unit of computing, while new uses could increase total demand. Some proposed campuses may be canceled. Some could be repurposed. That uncertainty is precisely why contracts and grid planning must guard the public against paying for infrastructure attached to speculative commitments.

WHERE THIS STANDS IN OCTOBER 2026

As of October 16, 2026, the national data-center buildout is proceeding amid growing scrutiny. The federal government continues to support energy infrastructure and industrial development tied to computing. States and utilities are debating large-load tariffs, environmental disclosures, tax incentives and permitting. Community residents have filed lawsuits, protested proposals, questioned public meetings and sought moratoria in different jurisdictions. There is no single nationwide rule determining how every data-center project is approved or who pays for every grid expansion.

A same-day Reuters report described a 3.3-billion-dollar federal rural utility loan associated with a Georgia power project that could indirectly benefit data-center growth. The loan is financing infrastructure rather than representing a direct grant to a particular data center, but it illustrates why the public-financing dimension deserves sustained attention. When government-backed lending, tax policy and utility investment intersect with private industrial demand, taxpayers and ratepayers need a clear explanation of the risk and expected benefit.

Polling also suggests that concern is widespread. Urban Institute reporting in September 2026 cited survey findings indicating that a large majority of Americans did not want a data center built in their area. Such figures depend on the wording, sample and timing of surveys; they are not evidence that every individual opposes all data centers. They do show that public skepticism is substantial and cuts across familiar political divisions. Communities are no longer accepting billion-dollar announcements as automatic good news.

For Shalena Speaks readers, my advice is to interrogate the promises. If a facility is proposed in your county, ask who owns the land, which approvals are needed, which agencies are involved, how much public money or tax relief is at stake, whether utility upgrades are planned, what environmental reports exist and when residents can give input. Save the public records. Ask for written answers. Do not accept vague promises, but do not repeat unverified claims either.

And if you have firsthand experience—whether you are a parent near a proposed facility, an elderly resident affected by construction noise, a worker building a campus, a utility customer who received a special rate notice, or someone who attended a hearing after finding out late—I want to hear from you. Tell me what happened, when you learned about it, what documents you saw and what response you received. Firsthand reporting is how we move this conversation beyond viral clips and marketing speeches.

The question is not whether America should have technology. Of course it should. The question is what kind of country we become when communities are expected to absorb industrial impacts while being treated as spectators in decisions about their own neighborhoods. If private firms expect the benefits of public infrastructure, public officials should be able to show the public the costs, the protections and the return. We deserve a ledger, not a slogan.

Because there is something deeply backwards about telling working Americans there is no money to make daily life easier, then expecting them to trust arrangements worth billions without clear answers about electricity, water, air, land and health. We can be curious about innovation without surrendering our right to ask questions. And if a company wants to call a project an investment in our future, it should be ready to prove whose future actually improves.

SOURCES & REFERENCES

U.S. Department of Energy, December 20, 2024, Data Center Energy Use: https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-releases-new-report-evaluating-increase-electricity-demand-data-centers

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2024 United States Data Center Energy Usage Report: https://bies.lbl.gov/publications/2024-lbnl-data-center-energy-usage-report

Virginia Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission, Data Centers in Virginia, energy cost findings: https://jlarc.virginia.gov/pdfs/reports/Rpt598.pdf

Ohio Consumers' Counsel, large data center cost tariff: https://www.occ.ohio.gov/content/data-center-costs-24-0508-el-ata

Georgia Public Broadcasting, August 6, 2026, Effingham residents and behind-closed-doors negotiations: https://www.gpb.org/news/2026/08/06/effingham-county-residents-are-coming-grips-their-neighbor-be-openai

Georgia Public Broadcasting, September 3, 2026, residents sue over alleged secret dealmaking: https://www.gpb.org/news/2026/09/03/residents-sue-effingham-county-over-illegal-zoning-practices-and-secret-dealmaking

Georgia Public Broadcasting, July 20, 2026, Lowndes County secrecy and residents' objections: https://www.gpb.org/news/2026/07/20/secrecy-around-data-center-project-in-south-ga-hasnt-stopped-neighbors-fight

Associated Press, October 2026, Nevada federal land dispute: https://apnews.com/article/777894300ca0612493a4991da5f30308

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Diesel Exhaust and Health: https://www.epa.gov/dera/learn-about-impacts-diesel-exhaust-and-diesel-emissions-reduction-act

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter: https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health-and-environmental-effects-particulate-matter-pm

Peer-reviewed analysis, Global Data Center Expansion and Human Health, 2025: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eehl.2025.100157

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, October 15, 2026, The Community and Economic Impacts of Data Centers: https://www.uschamber.com/infrastructure/the-community-and-economic-impacts-of-data-centers

Urban Institute, September 11, 2026, Community Concerns and Data Centers: https://www.urban.org/research/publication/most-americans-do-not-want-data-center-their-area-how-can-policymakers-better

Reuters, October 16, 2026, federal rural utility financing and data centers: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/data-centers-may-benefit-massive-rural-utility-loan-us-official-says-2026-10-16/