Opposition to AI data centers is scrambling midterm races from Ohio to Wyoming. Candidates in both parties are distancing themselves from projects their leaders once courted. In Pennsylvania, Gov. Josh Shapiro removed AI data centers from the state’s fast-track program, which coordinates agency reviews to speed major projects. He also required local approval, enforceable commitments on power, water and community benefits, and barred state agencies from using nondisclosure agreements that can hide project terms.
The public sees companies capture the upside while communities face the risk of long-term burdens, including higher electricity bills, infrastructure costs, prolonged construction disruption and pressure on local water supplies. Many facilities use evaporative cooling, which consumes water to remove server heat. The industry answers with investment totals, construction jobs and competition with China. Those benefits matter. But voters are asking more concrete questions: Who pays, what remains after construction, and who is accountable if the promises are not kept?
Gallup found that 71% of Americans oppose an AI data center in their area. In a survey of 1,566 voters, Veleonis and co/efficient found that three in four chose no company or were unsure which company they could trust to operate one responsibly. Half cited electricity, water or other environmental effects when asked what they would want to know about a local project. The industry built the case for scale before earning public permission to build.
At least 4,000 data centers operate nationwide, with roughly 3,000 more planned or under construction. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, an Energy Department research lab, estimates that data centers could consume 9.5% to 15.3% of U.S. electricity by 2030, up from about 4.7% in 2024, roughly double to more than triple today’s share. America needs more computing capacity, along with the power, grid infrastructure and willing communities to support it.
The challenge is how to keep the AI buildout moving without asking communities to absorb its costs. The way through is what I call a Capacity Expansion Bargain: a reciprocal deal in which growth adds capacity rather than consuming what is already scarce. Companies 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 honor agreed tax and permitting terms and move compliant projects through a clear process and timetable. The bargain rewards responsible development and filters out speculation, secrecy and cost shifting.
Start with electricity. The costs created by a large data center should be traceable to it and paid by it. Each facility should therefore have its own contract rather than pay the general commercial rate. The contract should include a minimum payment for reserved capacity, require the developer to finance new substations and grid connections, and impose an exit fee if it walks away. It should also require enough new regional supply to cover the facility’s demand. Drawing on existing generation without adding new supply tightens the market and can raise everyone else’s bills.
The White House Ratepayer Protection Pledge adopts this principle, but voluntary promises need binding utility contracts. AEP Ohio shows why. By the utility’s account, developers initially sought more than 30,000 megawatts, nearly three times its system’s peak demand. The queue fell to about 13,000 megawatts at the paid-study stage and 5,642 megawatts in signed contracts under the new tariff, on top of 12,219 megawatts contracted earlier. Escalating financial commitments distinguish serious projects from placeholders.
Every project should publish a plain-English fact sheet before approval. It should state its electricity and water use, cooling method, power source, public incentives, permanent jobs and contributions to roads, emergency services and worker training. Independent experts should verify operating data after the facility opens. Agreements involving public money or resources should remain public. False claims should trigger penalties and repayment of incentives.
States have an equal obligation to honor the tax and permitting terms promised to projects that have committed capital. Many states exempt data center servers and equipment from sales tax; whatever rule a state adopts must remain stable long enough for a project to be financed. A company meeting the new standard should receive one coordinated review across agencies, with clear requirements and a deadline.
Pennsylvania has written much of the protection side of this bargain. It should add the reciprocal promise: A project that pays its infrastructure costs, adds power, earns local approval and accepts enforceable disclosure qualifies for faster review. Stable rules and timely decisions are the government’s contribution.
This settlement can survive a change in party. Republicans can defend it as ratepayer protection, local control and financial discipline. Democrats can defend it as environmental protection, transparency and corporate accountability. Governors can welcome investment while assuring residents they will not subsidize it.
The test is simple. A project that expands capacity, pays its own way and proves its claims should move quickly. A project that shifts costs, drains scarce resources without replacing them or hides its effects should fail.
Watch whether any state pairs Pennsylvania’s protections with a speed guarantee. The first governor to offer both will learn which developers meant what they said. America will win the AI buildout by giving communities a better deal.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
