The anti-nuclear playbook comes for data centers

Half a century ago, raw emotion drove an anti-nuclear energy campaign that still stifles clean energy development in the U.S. Today, that same fear-driven playbook is being deployed in a campaign to shut down data centers.

The U.S. did not build another nuclear power plant between 1996 and 2016. Even today, efforts to revitalize the nation’s nuclear power industry face skepticism and legacy regulatory roadblocks.

A technician in headphones is working on network equipment, surrounded by cables and servers, while two colleagues discuss documents in the background.
Side view portrait of young network engineer in server room doing maintenance work in data center, copy space

From CFACT

By Duggan Flanakin

Half a century ago, raw emotion drove an anti-nuclear energy campaign that still stifles clean energy development in the U.S. Today, that same fear-driven playbook is being deployed in a campaign to shut down data centers.

Between 1970 and 1990, America built 95 nuclear power plants that still supply nearly a fifth of the nation’s electricity, but the minor incident at Three Mile Island led to cancellation of another 67 planned builds.

The U.S. did not build another nuclear power plant between 1996 and 2016. Even today, efforts to revitalize the nation’s nuclear power industry face skepticism and legacy regulatory roadblocks.

Small modular reactors were first tested decades ago and could already be powering data centers had anti-nuclear fearmongering not stopped the Integral Fast Reactor program in 1994.

Many Americans today are rightly riled up about data centers robbing communities of precious drinking water resources and raising their electric bills. Others ask whether data centers are part of a vast secret conspiracy to take away their jobs, their freedom, and perhaps even their lives.

Goldman Sachs estimated that U.S. data center power demand could grow from 31 gigawatts in 2025 to 66 gigawatts in 2027. The push for an all-electric society has helped cause demand to rise faster than the nation can build new capacity. When demand exceeds supply, prices rise.

Neither the media nor the political establishment had prepared Americans for these shocking developments — so it is no wonder that data centers have become a political football.

The growing divide today is between the anti-nuclear playbook – now repurposed in ways that risk crippling the American economy – and the recognition that some data centers have disrupted lives, an unacceptable trade-off no matter how badly they are needed.

Fuel for the anti-data center fire stems from real-life stories of an Oregon community that found nearby Google data centers were using a quarter of their water supply. Data centers connected to the power grid also tend to drive up electricity costs, according to Consumer Reports. These real-life impacts have even the strongest supporters of the American Dream up in arms.

Many data center developers have failed to explain that every time we look up a movie showtime, tap a card at checkout, back up a video, or ask Google a question we can thank a data center for making those tasks easy. They have also failed to fully address citizen concerns.

President Trump pushed the data center industry into signing the Ratepayer Protection Pledge at the White House back in March. But that commitment was voluntary — and people too often tricked by pledges not followed through on remain skeptical.

The Chinese government and its proxies, which thrive on exploiting fear, are funding a national campaign against data centers to slow the growth of the U.S. economy.

A May report from the Bitcoin Policy Institute traced three interlocking vectors that demonstrate China’s targeting of American AI data centers.

These include Chinese and Russian state media propaganda; a U.S.-based NGO network bankrolled by expatriate Neville Roy Singham; and billions in foreign dark money from such sources as Switzerland’s Hansjörg Wyss and the Oak Foundation, funded by British billionaire Alan Parker.

Lead author Sam Lyman says the choice facing America is not between AI or no AI but between American AI or Chinese AI — just as it is between continued Chinese dominance over critical minerals or an America-first mining and processing renaissance.

The Trump Administration’s push for nuclear energy both for the grid and for stand-alone units to power cloud and hyperscale data centers, military facilities, and remote industrial sites is part of a national strategy to expand electric generation without injuring ratepayers – an effort that had quietly begun during his first term.

After years of neglect, just before leaving office, President Biden issued Executive Order 14141 (Advancing U.S. Leadership in AI Infrastructure), which authorized leasing federal sites for gigawatt-scale data centers “with clean energy resources” to prevent public rate increases.

At the signing ceremony for the Ratepayer Protection Pledge, many of the nation’s largest AI and technology companies agreed to cover the costs of all new power generation for their facilities so as not to negatively impact ratepayers.

White House AI and Crypto advisor David Sacks contrasted this “common sense” approach over Bernie Sanders’ demand for a total ban on new data centers, which he said would halt a nationwide construction boom, stunt wage and job growth for blue-collar workers, and effectively cede the future to the Chinese.

Even better, Sacks said that, by allowing AI companies to pay for grid upgrades and sell excess power back to the grid, ratepayers might even see lower bills.

The only problem is that small modular reactors are just now undergoing testing and still have to work their way through a still-labyrinthine permitting process — the legacy of decades of anti-nuclear opposition.

As new data centers begin to generate their own off-grid electricity, the feared escalation of electricity bills should subside. But what about water use?

Most big data centers rely on water-based cooling towers or evaporative chillers to prevent server overheating and equipment failure. While many are using closed-loop water cooling in which the same water circulates in sealed pipes or coils that prevent evaporation, a technique that cuts water use by up to 70%, the public still sees them as stealing their drinking water.

Direct-to-chip cooling, which pipes cold liquid directly to servers, and immersion cooling, which submerges entire servers in a bath of non-conductive fluid, also minimize water use.

Norway is siting data centers near cold-water rivers and fjords, and in cold climates outside air can also keep servers running smoothly. Elon Musk is moving data centers into orbit, connecting them via satellite and Starlink, and requiring no cooling waters. SpaceX and Nvidia are planning to launch the first orbiting data center by 2028.

The trouble is that, with fast-emerging technology, any delay can result in a catastrophic loss of advantage.

Moratoriums, like that issued by New York Governor Kathy Hochul and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s move to strip data center projects from his state’s fast-track program (which he created in November 2024), can turn into long-term prohibitions for a short-term problem.

Manhattan Institute senior fellow Shawn Regan contrasts the actions of these governors with that of Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who is in a dogfight reelection campaign. Texas, he says, mostly refined its existing process “to better sort through a chaotic data-center development pipeline without abandoning growth.”

Texas requires an audit for “Batch Zero” projects under consideration for connection to the state’s grid. Developers must disclose expected electricity and water use, plans for on-site generation, cooling systems, tax incentives, and measures to mitigate noise, traffic, and other local impacts.

The contrast could not be clearer. The same fear-based politics that once stalled nuclear power, amplified today by “No Kings” style protests (funded by Singham NGOs), has left some politicians throwing in with the Chinese. Those who agree with President Trump’s vision for American hegemony do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater but need a little help from tech giants who many fear do not serve the public interest.

This article originally appeared at RealClear Energy

Watch: Morano on Fox on Massachusetts ‘green energy’ mandate for data centers

Massachusetts Gov Healey demands data centers use clean energy.

It’s a way of saying we’re banning data centers, but we’re not actually saying we’re banning data centers.

But we already have Larry Fink of BlackRock announce that solar and wind cannot possibly power AI data centers; you need fossil fuels.

A television host smiles while discussing a news segment about data centers and clean energy. The background features a graphic with the text 'MA GOV DEMANDS DATA CENTERS USE CLEAN ENERGY' and live broadcast details.

From CFACT

By CFACT Ed

WATCH NOW

Massachusetts Gov Healey demands data centers use clean energy – ClimateDepot.com executive editor Marc Morano discusses Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey’s demand that data centers use clean energy and opposition to artificial intelligence data centers on ‘The Bottom Line.’

Partial Transcript: 

Morano on Massachusetts green energy mandates for data centers:

It’s a way of saying we’re banning data centers, but we’re not actually saying we’re banning data centers. What they’re doing is the same scam we’ve seen for decades now, originating with Al Gore. They’re setting up, essentially, this fund, which you could safely call a climate slush fund, demanding that all AI data centers being built in the state of Massachusetts adhere to green energy.

But we already have Larry Fink of BlackRock announce that solar and wind cannot possibly power AI data centers; you need fossil fuels.

You have Bill Gates, you have Mark Zuckerberg, you have Jeff Bezos, all investing in fossil fuels and in nuclear energy. The last thing they’re doing right now is saying, ‘Oh, solar and wind will power our new AI data centers.”

The math isn’t mathing. The physics aren’t physicing, and the state’s reality is not reality.

It’s a way to fill the state coffers. I don’t think the state will get any money in this climate slush fund because there’s no AI data center that’s going to adhere to their ridiculous proposal.

But in Massachusetts, let’s be clear if this goes forward, they’ve essentially banned AI data centers. And that’s what we should call it, a ban. It’s not, ‘if they meet this green energy provision, they can build’ — because that’s nonsensical, and it’s a non-starter. Every AI advocate will tell you — anyone who studies AI will tell you — that ‘green energy’ can’t possibly power it.

…

Fox Anchor: A sports editor at the Los Angeles Times has a new target for climate doom, college football writing on X quote, at some point schools and TV networks are going to have to adapt to climate change. And stop expecting fans to tolerate extreme heat as a badge of honor supporting their teams. What is this individual? I couldn’t ascertain if that was a the gender of that person wouldn’t, the hell is this person talking about?

Morano: This is a senior sports editor over there and it’s the same Los Angeles Times that said that the World Cup back in June would cause a climate catastrophe and warned of the games being too hot. Remember we had the whole thing with the World Cup where the media was touting that we could have fans that were overly drunk due to the climate and you’d have extra slow players from climate change.

The Los Angeles Times has also said they want to get rid of individual air conditioners in homes and have cooling centers around the city, so people could go congregate in central locations.

See: LA Times: Instead of air conditioning running in your home during heatwaves, the LA Times interviews experts suggesting “investing in a wider network of cooling centers, with transportation to help people get there.” 

This is utter nonsense. If you look at EPA data, it was much hotter in the 1930s, heat waves in the United States than anything we’re experiencing now. The EPA’s Heat Wave Index was significantly higher during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. Imagine if these games were back then? Meteorologist debunks ‘belief’ that ‘climate change is making heatwaves worse: Heatwaves in USA were more frequent from 1901-1960 & ‘Number of days reaching 100°F & 105°F have also declined since 1895’

I don’t understand how an allegedly intelligent person with the Los Angeles Times can come out and say essentially: ‘We can’t do sporting events during the day because of climate change.’ If it’s an extra hot day, maybe move the game to later in the day when it’s cooler. But that’s not climate change. That’s just smart sports practices. But the LA Times just cannot help themselves.

And they keep pushing this nonsense over and over. They did it with the World Cup; they’re doing it with football. By the way, the La Clippers basketball team are involved in a carbon scheme fraud scandal. So the whole City of Los Angeles and California just can’t get away from it.

Fox Anchor: There’s always got to be some dumb politics getting in the middle of sports. Marc Morano, you bring all the smart analysis and energy. Thank you very much; we appreciate it.

President Trump’s ratepayer protection pledge shows how America can win the A.I. race

Last week, President Donald J. Trump brought together electric utilities and state leaders to sign the Ratepayer Protection Pledge, an important step toward addressing one of the biggest challenges facing the country.

That is why the Ratepayer Protection Pledge matters. It recognizes that America does not have to choose between winning the AI race and protecting customers from higher electric bills.

From CFACT

By Brad Viator

Last week, President Donald J. Trump brought together electric utilities and state leaders to sign the Ratepayer Protection Pledge, an important step toward addressing one of the biggest challenges facing the country.

America needs the infrastructure to lead the world in artificial intelligence. But Americans are right to ask whether they will be left paying for the massive buildout required to power that growth.

They shouldn’t.

The companies driving unprecedented demand for electricity should bear the costs of serving that demand—not families and small businesses already working hard to make ends meet.

That is why the Ratepayer Protection Pledge matters. It recognizes that America does not have to choose between winning the AI race and protecting customers from higher electric bills. We can—and must—do both.

Encouragingly, some states are already showing how.

Across much of the Southeast, utilities, regulators, and policymakers are demonstrating that data center growth, customer protection, and economic development can go hand in hand. Rather than viewing these goals as competing priorities, they have adopted policies that align them.

A key reason is a regulatory framework that gives state regulators oversight over how data centers are added to the grid and how the costs of serving them are allocated. Utilities also have the ability to plan for rising demand and develop the generation needed to serve customers reliably.

Just as important, many utilities have deep roots in the communities they serve. They understand that attracting a new data center should benefit more than the company building it. It should create jobs, strengthen local economies, improve infrastructure, and deliver value to existing customers.

Consider what is already happening.

In Georgia, fast-paced data center growth led Georgia Power to announce a Customer Protection Plan designed to ensure data centers pay more so residential customers can pay less – most recently with the utility’s landmark flexible data center deal with OpenAI, which will be integrated in a way that supports grid reliability. The company also announced a residential rate reduction of roughly $50 per year.

In North Carolina, Duke Energy has said a new Amazon Web Services data center will create 2,000 temporary jobs and 500 permanent positions. Furthermore, for each gigawatt of data center capacity signed under a 15-year contract, the company says it generates up to $1 billion in savings for the broader customer base.

In Louisiana, Entergy has said Meta’s new data center will deliver billions of dollars in customer benefits over time while helping support investments in reliability and resilience.

These examples demonstrate an important point: data centers can do more than support America’s AI ambitions. When structured properly, they can strengthen communities, support grid investments, create jobs, and deliver benefits to existing customers.

Unfortunately, not every part of the country is achieving these outcomes.

Some states rely on deregulated electric markets that were intended to lower costs through competition. Yet many customers in those states are facing rising electricity prices while demand continues to grow.

From a cost perspective, our research has shown that residential customers pay on average 54% more for electricity in deregulated states than in regulated electric states.

A new study from a respected consumer advocate also found that American households in deregulated states paid at least $48 billion more for electricity over the past decade than they would have with regulated utilities.

That should concern anyone who is worried about costs and wants America to lead in AI.

The answer is not to slow down data center development. The answer is to expand the policies and regulatory frameworks that are already proving successful in parts of the country.

President Trump’s Ratepayer Protection Pledge provides an important roadmap. It recognizes that America’s economic and technological leadership depends on building the infrastructure needed to power the AI era. But it also recognizes that customers deserve protection.

The good news is that we do not have to choose one goal over the other. States across the Southeast are demonstrating that America can attract data centers, strengthen communities, protect customers, and compete in the AI race at the same time.

That is a model worth scaling nationwide.

This article originally appeared at Real Clear Energy

Aussie Green Energy Plans in Chaos, as the Majority of Capacity Investment Scheme Projects Fail to Progress

Even desperate measures like Australia’s attempt to force US AI companies to pay for Aussie Net Zero have fallen flat.

What’s happening is hilarious, in a tragic kind of way.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Even desperate measures like Australia’s attempt to force US AI companies to pay for Aussie Net Zero have fallen flat.

Zombie projects drag on Labor clean energy goals

Ryan Cropp Energy and climate reporter
Jul 19, 2026 – 6.34pm

…

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese last week declared that next-generation data centres would be required to add as much power to the grid as they use, and the government is hopeful that the boom will help get many struggling renewables projects over the line.

Tech companies have had discussions with some renewables developers, but have not yet been able to agree on a price high enough to make the projects viable, according to industry sources who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive commercial negotiations.

…

Of the 19 winners of the policy’s troubled first competitive auction, which were announced more than 18 months ago, only three have reached financial close, which is typically a key precursor to the beginning of construction.

Across the scheme’s first four auctions, only 13 of the 59 wind, solar and battery projects that won underwriting support have reached financial close, according to data compiled by Infradebt.

…

Unions will use Labor’s 50th national conference this week to push the government to take equity stakes of up to 100 per cent in new renewables projects, and use them to supply competitively priced power to manufacturing businesses and heavy industry.

…Read more: https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/zombie-projects-drag-on-labor-clean-energy-goals-20260719-p60gjq

What’s happening is hilarious, in a tragic kind of way.

The government has borrowed such a vast amount of money, somewhere in excess of $100 billion by my estimate, to build new powerlines and other supporting infrastructure to designated renewable project precincts, that borrowing splurge has broken the Australian bond market, driving up interest rates to the point most of those projects are no longer viable even with generous government support.

The AI companies aren’t interested in dumping money into Australia’s energy policy disaster, but at least one AI company is buying big in Australia’s premier coal district, where vast quantities of cheap coal are still waiting to be mined, even though they are not allowed to use that coal under current rules. This has to be a bet that the current set of bums which run the country will shortly be tossed out of office (sorry I forgot who mentioned this in comments).

To add to this circus, unions whose members are being very well paid indeed for those projects like Snowy 2 which have gone forward, are demanding the government fling enough money at all the other proposed boondoggles which have stalled thanks to federal economic mismanagement to make them happen.

But One Nation, which stands a real chance of becoming a dominant force in Aussie politics after the 2027 Federal Election, has announced a policy of ending renewable subsidies. Other opposition parties have announced they would dump Net Zero, but it’s less clear whether they want to end renewable subsidies.

To add to the fun, the government just changed the tax system, to tax capital gains on business investment at the same rate as income tax – so going forward, any capital expenditure in Australia needs a really high rate of return to be worth doing.

It’s a real popcorn moment for Australia. Nobody knows which way the Aussie government will jump next. The only thing for sure, going by their track record, is when they come up with a “remediation” plan, it will be more incompetent than anything we can imagine.

The Real Grid Crisis Is a State Policy Problem Dressed Up as a Market Failure

There’s a critique of PJM making the rounds: PJM is too big. There are too many state interests at play, and PJM doesn’t have the ability to function cohesively or quickly enough. FERC even scheduled a governance technical conference this month to examine whether PJM’s stakeholder structure can move fast enough to respond to demand. The reality is that policy disagreements at the state level are dressed up as a procedural defect with the grid, opening the way for critics to point their reforms at the wrong target.

From Watts Up With That?

By Todd Snitchler

There’s a critique of PJM making the rounds: PJM is too big. There are too many state interests at play, and PJM doesn’t have the ability to function cohesively or quickly enough. FERC even scheduled a governance technical conference this month to examine whether PJM’s stakeholder structure can move fast enough to respond to demand. The reality is that policy disagreements at the state level are dressed up as a procedural defect with the grid, opening the way for critics to point their reforms at the wrong target.

Disagreements at the state level are just what you’d expect, pitting those that generate enough power to export against those that depend on imports. Pennsylvania is PJM’s energy workhorse, shipping out roughly a quarter of everything it generates. Illinois, West Virginia, and Michigan also produce more than they consume. The others – Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Delaware – are net importers, and increasingly so as data centers expand across their footprints.

Exporters like Pennsylvania that are rich in nuclear, gas, and coal generation have fundamentally different interests in capacity pricing and transmission cost allocation from an importer state, which has restricted natural gas development, leaned hard into renewables, or joined an ambitious emission reduction program. When Virginia pulls in more expensive power from its neighbors, or when Maryland absorbs double-digit rate hikes, that isn’t a governance failure – it’s the market doing its job by revealing the cost of divergent state policy preferences (and thus resource access).

These state policy preferences are then lobbed at the market and its participants to respond to, whether by prematurely retiring generation, relying on tax subsidies, or simply building generation that is more expensive per megawatt when compared against traditional baseload fuels.

PJM is actively working to continue the evolution of the market to meet the demand of today and the future. It has cleared more than 60% of its interconnection backlog under a reformed study process and opened a new study cycle this spring in partnership with Google to apply AI to speed up the review process. A separate PJM program, the Reliability Resource Initiative, pulled in more than 11,000 MW of new projects that could come online quickly. PJM has also adjusted its review processes to allow more wind, solar, and storage to compete directly in the capacity auction. It’s even accepted a price collar through 2030, demonstrating that it is willing to make short-term adjustments in response to concerns by state executives.

More than 46,000 MW of approved projects – over a quarter of PJM’s existing capacity – already hold the right to build but are unable to move forward. Some 37,000 MW of PJM-approved generation can’t even break ground at all because of state and local permitting fights. At the same time, state policy mandates have pushed working plants into early retirement, further tightening supply from the other end. The same governors demanding faster action are often the ones holding the permits and slow-walking the buildout of energy infrastructure while forcing closures of dispatchable power.

PJM is not too big. It has demonstrated time and again that it can run a competitive power market and ensure the reliable transportation of power across 13 very varied states and the District of Columbia. It’s been successfully doing this for more than 30 years, delivering $5 billion in savings annually to customers, just as it was designed to do. It’s accelerated the queue and kept the lights on. What the market cannot do is permit projects or draft legislation. States must recognize their role in restricting the full benefits of the market.

Asking PJM to continue navigating these policy issues in the same manner – trying to respond to all of them – is a recipe for disaster. The states are absolutely responsible for chucking icebergs into the path of this ship, and if it goes down, they’ll have themselves to blame for the aftermath.

Todd Snitchler is President and CEO of the Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA).

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

NSW Eco-Activists Horrified That Their New Industrial Park Needs a Power Plant

This is a classic case of green energy ideology colliding with the reality of powering modern industry.

The irony is thick: activists backed the industrial park assuming it would magically run on solar panels and EVs, ignoring physics and engineering.

“Small-scale” green dreams don’t scale to industrial reality.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Essay by Eric Worrall

“… We were all on board, thinking it was going to attract some really interesting small-scale industries like electric cars, photovoltaics … things like that. …”

How is that a good deal?’: Outrage at Southern Highlands data centre

Greg Bearup Senior writer
Jun 26, 2026 – 5.00am

The AI boom has landed in the wealthy region with a speculative plan to supersize a hub and power it with a new gas plant. Locals are fighting back.

…

Cloud Carrier plans to build a data centre on the outskirts of Moss Vale, powered by a 673-megawatt gas power station.

If built, it would be among the largest gas plants in the state and would put a serious dent in the state’s efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

…

“This [industrial park] had been sold to us as a positive thing,” says McKay.

“We were all on board, thinking it was going to attract some really interesting small-scale industries like electric cars, photovoltaics … things like that.

“We are a very environmentally minded community.

“We’re all trying to do the right thing on an individual small scale, and then you have this thing, which would not only wipe out any emissions we’re saving, but the emissions of the entire state.”

…

Kean, now chairman of the federal Climate Change Authority, says data centres should be underwriting new renewables projects, not new fossil fuel projects.

…Read more: https://www.afr.com/technology/not-in-my-back-paddock-data-centre-plan-sparks-fury-in-rural-nsw-20260619-p608gu

What an interesting and complex situation.

The countryside in that part of the world is beautiful – amazing landscape, boutique restaurants.

And to be fair, the industrial park was sold as a green innovation hub.

Southern Highlands Innovation Park (SHIP)

Offering unique opportunities to attract sustainable and innovative industries, the SHIP positions itself as a major economic driver for the Shire and the broader region.

About the Project:

The Southern Highlands Innovation Park (SHIP) is a regionally significant employment precinct comprising some 1,053 hectares of industrial zoned land between Moss Vale and Berrima. This precinct provides a unique opportunity to attract sustainable and innovative industries and become a major employer and economic driver for the Shire and the broader region.

The adopted SHIP Master Plan outlines implementation strategies to realise its long-term vision for the precinct, including a targeted rezoning of the southeastern portion of the SHIP from E4 General Industrial to E3 Productivity Support. See below for more details on the Planning Proposal.

…Read more: https://participatewingecarribee.wsc.nsw.gov.au/ship

There is something terribly unrealistic about expecting “industries like electric cars, photovoltaics … things like that” to be powered by a few genteel solar panels on the roofs of the ecologically sensitive boutique cottage industries the locals obviously expected their new industrial park to attract, or a discrete solar park out of sight behind a hill nobody cares about.

Yet Australia has a terrifying shortage of onshore AI capacity. Australia’s strict data privacy laws make sharing code and data with offshore data providers legally risky. Without more onshore data capacity, the Australian economy, the cornerstone of the prosperity enjoyed by wealthy land owners in places like Moss Vale, will be at risk.

Anyone who thinks AI doesn’t deliver transformative productivity gains, I recommend you read my article on vibe coding, which contains a complete start to finish demonstration of how powerful this new technology is. My vibe code example was driven by AI data centers in the USA – to the best of my knowledge Australia has no domestic data centers which can deliver this level of capability. And it’s not just code – as my article below details, vibe production, which extends accelerated product development cycles to all sectors of the economy, is very rapidly becoming a thing.

In this case, despite my enthusiasm for AI and concern that Australia is slipping badly behind, I believe the locals in South Downs can reasonably claim to have been misled. Perhaps the locals should have done their own research, but in my opinion the prospectus for the industrial park which I quoted above could have been more open about the kind of industry they were hoping to attract.

Let’s hope the residents of Moss Vale get a resolution to their dilemma which they find acceptable, even if it isn’t everything they might have wanted.

America’s Energy Future Is Being Decided in Obscure Utility Commission Races

Most Americans could not name a single member of their state Public Service or Utility Commission (PSC/PUC).

Radical climate activists are counting on that.

From Watts Up With That?

By Elizabeth Gianini

Most Americans could not name a single member of their state Public Service or Utility Commission (PSC/PUC).

Radical climate activists are counting on that.

Across the country, radical climate activists and left-wing environmental organizations are pouring millions of dollars into obscure utility commission races because they understand something many voters do not: these commissions increasingly influence the future of America’s electric grid.

These regulatory bodies decide how electricity is generated, how transmission infrastructure is built, how quickly power plants retire, how new resources are integrated into the grid, and ultimately how much Americans pay for electricity and whether the lights stay on when the system is under stress.

In Georgia, radical climate activists invested heavily in the 2025 PSC races, helping defeat Republican commissioners who supported an all-of-the-above energy strategy. In Arizona, activist-backed candidates won utility elections while advocating accelerated retirements of dispatchable generation. Similar efforts are already emerging in other states.

These organizations understand that utility commissioners play a critical role in shaping energy infrastructure, reliability, and investment decisions within the legal and regulatory frameworks established by their states. As national energy debates have become increasingly difficult to win in Washington, radical left-wing environmental activists have turned their attention to state-level regulatory races where those decisions are often debated and implemented.

What makes this debate so misleading is that activists frame it as a choice between renewable energy and the dispatchable generation still required to keep the grid reliable, affordable, and resilient.

It is not.

Most Republican PSC and PUC commissioners support an all-of-the-above energy strategy. They recognize that meeting America’s growing energy needs while maintaining reliability and resilience will require contributions from virtually every available energy source.

What they reject is the fantasy that America can rapidly phase out dispatchable generation before replacement technologies are capable of providing the same level of reliability, resilience, and affordability.

Many radical climate activists have shifted their messaging from climate targets to affordability. Affordable electricity means very little if policymakers sacrifice reliability in pursuit of political timelines.

No major industrial economy has demonstrated that a heavily renewable-dependent electric system can operate at scale with consistent reliability and affordable consumer costs without substantial dispatchable backup generation.

At the same time, electricity demand is surging. Artificial intelligence, data centers, domestic manufacturing, and electrification are creating the largest increase in power demand America has seen in decades.

The Trump Administration’s Ratepayer Protection Pledge reflects a simple principle: large AI and data-center customers should bear their fair share of the generation, transmission, and infrastructure costs associated with their growth rather than shifting those costs onto families, small businesses, and existing ratepayers.

America’s electric grid was already facing enormous modernization requirements. Transmission systems are aging. Generation fleets are evolving.

AI is accelerating the urgency of these investments. It did not create the underlying challenge.

Utilities are expected to spend approximately $1.4 trillion over the next five years modernizing the electric grid, replacing aging infrastructure, hardening systems against extreme weather, and expanding capacity.

Recent Department of Energy actions to preserve dispatchable generation reflect a growing recognition that reliability and resilience must remain central considerations in America’s energy transition. The challenge is not simply building new resources. It is ensuring the electric system remains dependable during periods of peak demand, extreme weather, and other conditions that place stress on the grid.

The real challenge is not choosing between renewable and traditional energy. It is building a reliable, affordable, resilient, and scalable system capable of supporting long-term economic growth while withstanding major disruptions and restoring service quickly when Americans need power most.

Pretending otherwise may satisfy radical climate activists.

It will not keep electricity affordable.

It will not keep the lights on during hurricanes, polar freezes, or extreme heat events when millions of Americans depend on electricity not simply for convenience, but for safety and survival.

Recent victories in Georgia and Arizona have emboldened radical climate activists and their allies, who increasingly view state utility and regulatory commission races as some of the most important battlegrounds in American energy policy.

Republicans, business leaders, and ratepayers should start paying attention. The decisions made by these commissions will shape the affordability, reliability, resilience, and economic competitiveness of the American economy for decades to come.

Elizabeth Gianini is President of the Regulators RoundTable PAC. 

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

The Coal Conversation

States are trading reliable, dispatchable electricity for intermittent wind and solar, driving up costs and reducing reliability in exchange for emission reductions that have little impact on global temperatures. Not all megawatts are equal. We need an honest conversation about coal. Without firm, always-on generation, we cannot meet the demands of our 21st -century economy.

From ClimateRealism

Guest post by Amy Oliver Cooke at RealClearEnergy

President Donald Trump will say it: beautiful, clean coal. Alaska will host the first new coal-fired power plant built in the U.S. since 2013. Xcel Energy, the first utility to pledge net-zero emissions, is pleading with Colorado regulators to let it keep its coal-fired plants open through 2030. Yet coal remains a four-letter word in polite energy circles.

States are trading reliable, dispatchable electricity for intermittent wind and solar, driving up costs and reducing reliability in exchange for emission reductions that have little impact on global temperatures. Not all megawatts are equal. We need an honest conversation about coal. Without firm, always-on generation, we cannot meet the demands of our 21st -century economy.

Artificial intelligence, data centers, advanced manufacturing, and the electrification of everything are driving a surge in electricity demand that America’s grid cannot meet. NERC’s 2025 Electricity Supply and Demand data projects U.S. peak summer demand across all assessment areas reaching nearly 967,000 megawatts by 2030, an 18% increase from today.

The consequences are real. Data centers form the physical backbone of AI, cloud computing, electronic health records, financial markets, and defense logistics. Hyperscalers making decade-long infrastructure commitments cannot afford unreliable or high-priced power. If they cannot get it here, they will look elsewhere, including countries unburdened by philosophical objections to coal, gas, or nuclear. Those countries may require that our data be stored there. Every gigawatt of data center load we fail to serve will move somewhere with fewer constraints and less accountability.

Operators are hoping to meet 24/7 data center load with natural gas. After PJM reformed its interconnection queue, gas projects surged 1,810% over the prior year. But gas faces two hard supply walls. Major turbine manufacturers are backlogged to 2029 or 2030, and prices are rising. New pipelines face years of federal permitting and litigation. Data centers needing power in 2027 and 2028 cannot wait that long.

Atlanta-based Southern Company is caught in the bind that AI-driven demand is forcing across the energy sector. The utility is tracking more than 50 GW of potential new customer demand and has approved several gigawatts of new natural gas generation to begin meeting it. However, supply is constrained as new pipelines don’t come online until 2028 and 2029. To preserve capacity in the meantime, it has reversed planned coal retirements in Georgia and Mississippi.

Duke Energy faces a similar situation in North Carolina, where a legally mandated 2050 carbon-neutral goal remains on the books, but the state legislature stripped the 2030 interim target, freeing Duke to delay some coal retirements and lean on new natural gas. A critical new pipeline into the state is under construction but faces active litigation that could complicate its completion.

This leads to an obvious but challenging conversation: we need coal. Always On Energy Research’s analysis of Indiana’s levelized costs shows that existing, depreciated coal plants generate power at roughly $55 per megawatt-hour. With firming costs, wind reaches $129 per MWh and solar $159 per MWh, two to three times more expensive than existing coal. Indiana’s electricity prices rose 93% between 2007 and 2025, nearly twice the national average, as the state’s once-formidable cost advantage for manufacturers eroded with the help of state-incentivized investment in costly wind and solar.

Indiana isn’t unique. Across the country, regulated utilities earn returns on capital investment, not fuel. A paid-off coal plant earns shareholders nothing; a new wind farm earns a regulated return. The incentive to retire low-cost, reliable generation in favor of expensive, intermittent new generation is structural. After two decades of structural incentives that have driven up costs and driven down reliability, shareholders have done well, but ratepayers are worried about costs. And utilities are worried about reliable capacity.

Xcel Energy’s March 2026 filing with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission was blunt: the state faces capacity shortfalls in 2026 and 2027, reserve margins are “challenged” even in 2028, and there are “no viable alternatives” to keeping all four remaining coal plants online through 2030. Tri-State Generation and Transmission’s Craig Unit 1, scheduled for permanent closure at the end of 2025, was urgently called back into service in April 2026 after the Southwest Power Pool issued a resource advisory amid wind shortfalls. Ratepayers must pay for both resources.

The policy path is clear but politically challenging. Stop mandating coal retirements on arbitrary timelines. Prematurely retiring coal plants threatens reliability and makes it impossible to meet new demand. Where possible, modernize and reopen shuttered plants. Consider new coal capacity in the Southeast, which has the infrastructure and demand growth to support it. Reform permitting for gas and nuclear. And redirect wind and solar investment toward dispatchable resources. In a capacity-constrained environment, prioritizing intermittent generation over firm power compounds the very problem it claims to solve.

Our 21st-century AI buildout cannot pause for permitting reform, and national security infrastructure cannot wait to litigate pipelines. The economic opportunity of leading the digital economy belongs to those willing to power it. Right now, that means keeping coal in the conversation.

Amy Oliver Cooke is a founder, President, and Chairman of the Board of Always On Energy Research and host of the Colorado-based energy podcast Power Gab.

Originally posted at RealClearEnergy, reposted with permission.

Lawmakers Warn China May Be Fueling US Data Center Backlash as Local Bans Spread

Voters in a California city ban AI data center construction, plans for Utah data center shrinking over backlash, Seattle issues one-year prohibition on center construction.

From Watts Up With That?

From Legal Insurrection

Voters in a California city ban AI data center construction, plans for Utah data center shrinking over backlash, Seattle issues one-year prohibition on center construction.

Posted by Leslie Eastman 

In addition to some interesting developments in the Los Angeles primary — the results of which are yet to be completely determined — voters in the nearby city of Monterey Park had the chance to consider the fate of artificial intelligence (AI) data centers in the region.

They chose to ban them.

About 86 percent of voters in Monterey Park, Calif., voted in favor of the measure in Tuesday’s elections, according to election results from the county clerk.

The measure declares a prohibition on data centers citywide in order to “protect air quality, drinking water resources and public health” and “prevent impacts to electricity and water rates.”

It comes in response to a proposed data center project in Monterey Park, which was ultimately withdrawn earlier this year after the city council adopted a moratorium on data center construction.

Data center moratoriums and restrictions have gained traction across the country at the state and local level in the face of rising community pushback to the sprawling server warehouses that are central to the AI boom.

In first, California city overwhelmingly votes to permanently ban datacenters | Sanya Mansoor, The Guardian

Residents in Monterey Park, California, became the first in the US to vote on a permanent ban on datacenters on Tuesday, and early results indicate a resounding victory… pic.twitter.com/fXcCbFFJgu

— Owen Gregorian (@OwenGregorian) June 4, 2026

In the wake of backlash to a data center being in built in Utah, businessman Kevin O’Leary has agreed to cut the project area in half, from around 40,000 acres to around 20,000 acres.

Of the remaining 20,000 acres or so of the project area, around half would remain undeveloped and set aside as agricultural space or for wildlife, reducing the effective area facing development to 10,000 acres.

In a letter Thursday to Utah Senate President Stuart Adams, O’Leary said he’d remove two of the three proposed project areas from the data center initiative, one measuring around 19,430 acres in the Locomotive Springs area, another measuring around 620 acres abutting I-84. That would leave the third, more southeasterly parcel in the Hansel Valley, measuring around 20,000 acres.

“We agreed to remove the 19,000-plus in Locomotive and the 600 or so by the highway,” said Paul Palandjian, chief executive officer of O’Leary Digital, chaired by O’Leary and the business entity pursuing the initiative. “I think (that) addresses a lot of people’s concerns.”

“O’Leary shrinking Utah data center after backlash” – The Hill #SmartNews #Ban DATACENTERS https://t.co/YaV8BjKvmQ

— Sweet Tea (@LaurenSexyGirl) June 4, 2026

In Seattle, the city’s Land Use and Sustainability Committee voted unanimously this week to advance a moratorium on large-scale data centers.

If passed by the full City Council, the city would impose a one-year ban on data centers that use more than 20 megavolt-amperes, roughly equivalent to 20 megawatts. In that time, the city would study regulations that might allow large-scale data centers under certain conditions.

There were 30 public commenters at Wednesday’s meeting, the overwhelming majority who expressed concern about data centers’ electricity and water use, financial and environmental impacts, land use and noise. Several also voiced broader opposition to artificial intelligence.

Committee Chair Eddie Lin, who co-sponsored the moratorium bill, said he was concerned about the impact of “mega data centers” and how they may require the city to rely more on electricity generated from fossil fuels.

Amazon engineers in Seattle slam employer for building AI data centers while laying off 30,000 staffers | Annie Palmer, CNBC

Key Points

– Amazon engineers railed at their employer for conducting mass layoffs while committing to spend $200 billion this year on AI infrastructure,… pic.twitter.com/R4MgOJvLpX

— Owen Gregorian (@OwenGregorian) June 4, 2026

In the wake of these developments, it’s important to note that the House Energy and Commerce Committee asserts there is evidence that “strongly suggests” China and other foreign adversaries are fueling campaigns opposing data centers to undermine the U.S. in the artificial intelligence race.

Lawmakers on the panel urged in a new letter to the Trump administration to step up oversight of possible ties between China and anti-AI forces in the U.S., fretting that the international subterfuge could undermine American dominance.

“Our nation is locked in a race with China to innovate and lead the world in the development of Artificial Intelligence technologies,” House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) told The Post.

“The fact that Chinese Communist Party-backed entities and other foreign adversaries may be attempting to influence decisions related to American data center infrastructure puts into perspective how serious of a fight we are in.”

 — REPORT: House Republicans warned that evidence “strongly suggests” China and other foreign adversaries may be helping fuel anti-data center campaigns in the United States in an effort to slow American AI development and gain an advantage in the global race for artificial… pic.twitter.com/UIMQViXbpO

— Belaaz News (@TheBelaaz) June 4, 2026

The local votes in Monterey Park and Seattle may look like ordinary civic environmentalism, but the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s warning reframes them in a far more sobering light.

Evidence “strongly suggests” that CCP-aligned entities and foreign adversaries are actively fueling campaigns to block American AI infrastructure, which is the same infrastructure Beijing is simultaneously subsidizing at home for its own AI competitors.

Paired with “virtue signaling” and NIMBY attitudes, these developments suggest that the future of AI in this country may not be quite what its promoters have advertised.

AI Revolution: Leaving Green Energy States Behind

The artificial intelligence revolution is leaving green electricity states behind. Network operators are choosing states with policies favorable for gas-fired power to support construction of new data centers. States that block data center construction or try to force firms to use wind and solar electricity will lose the economic benefits of the AI boom.

From Master Resource

By Steve Goreham 

The artificial intelligence revolution is leaving green electricity states behind. Network operators are choosing states with policies favorable for gas-fired power to support construction of new data centers. States that block data center construction or try to force firms to use wind and solar electricity will lose the economic benefits of the AI boom.

We are in the midst of an AI revolution on a scale that may exceed the internet revolution of twenty years ago. BNP Paribus estimates that AI will boost the US economy by more than 10% by 2034. Goldman Sachs forecasts that AI could raise the global GDP by 7% over the next decade, or about $7 trillion.

More than one thousand data centers are under construction all over the nation, filled with servers to run AI. More than 4,000 data centers are now operating, up 50% since June 2024. Data center construction spending now exceeds that for office building construction.

Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Meta, and Oracle, the five largest AI “hyperscalers,” will spend over $800 billion this year and over $1 trillion in 2027 on AI capital equipment and data centers. Total 2027 spending is projected to exceed US spending for national defense.

Data center installation can bring tremendous benefits to local communities. The $20 billion, 1.8 gigawatt, 795-acre, Joliet Technology Center was just approved in Joliet, Illinois. The project is a medium-sized center but will be the largest in Illinois to date, expected to provide 10,000 construction jobs and $2.1 billion in tax revenue over a 30-year period.

But Illinois wants to force data centers to source power from wind and solar generators. In 2021 the state passed the Climate & Equitable Jobs Act, which requires coal and gas power plants to close between 2030 and 2045. As a result, Hull Street Energy is shutting down two-thirds of its Elwood Energy gas-fired plant years before a 2030 deadline, putting it on flatbed trucks, and transporting it to Texas. The six gas turbines being moved can together generate up to 900 megawatts of power. The loss of most of the Elwood Energy plant and the demands of the new Joliet Technology Center mean a three-gigawatt reduction in the available power capacity in northern Illinois.

Operators strive to bring new data centers online in less than three years to meet rising AI demand. Nuclear plants typically need 10 years for startup. Wind and solar facilities cover wide areas of land, require two to three times as much transmission, and years for transmission approval and construction. Since on-site gas plants can be built quickly, gas has become the dominant power source for new data centers.

But because of the data center boom, gas turbines are now in short supply. Turbine orders doubled from 2024 to 2025, and prices increased by 50%. The lead time for turbines from the world’s top three suppliers, GE, Siemens, and Mitsubishi, has stretched out to five years. Elwood Energy took advantage of this shortage by moving turbines to Texas.   

Gas power plant construction for data centers is exploding in Texas. According to the Global Energy Monitor, Texas has 11 gas power plants under construction, another 102 in preconstruction—acquiring land, permits, and contracts—and another 28 projects announced. The pipeline of gas power projects in Texas grew to 58 GW in 2025, more than the peak power demand in California. Texas is building more gas-fired power than the next seven states combined, most of these to power data centers.

But like Illinois, many renewable energy states continue to try to force data centers to use wind and solar sources. Currently, 24 states have net zero electricity targets by 2050.

Data from USA Data Centers for the last two years shows that, with some exceptions, states without net zero electricity mandates are building data centers at a much faster pace than states with mandates. Since June of 2024, construction in states without mandates has exploded. Examples are Georgia (130 new data centers, up 157% from the number of existing centers), Indiana (84 new centers, up 221%), Iowa (73 new centers, up 252%), Missouri (33 new centers, up 85%), Pennsylvania (59 new centers, up 88%), and Texas (206 new centers, up 81%).

Most states with net zero mandates are building data centers at a much slower pace over the last two years. Examples are California (20 new centers, up 8%), Colorado (1 new center, up 2%), New York (6 new centers, up 5%), and Massachusetts (zero new data centers). Electricity prices in California, Massachusetts, and New York are amongst the highest in the nation, an additional reason why operators prefer other states for center sites.

Two exception states with net zero power mandates are Illinois (63 new centers, up 43%), and Virginia (136 new centers, up 29%). Electricity prices in Illinois are just over the national average and Virginia prices are below the average, helping to attract developers.

In addition to energy mandates, several states are considering bans on data center construction. Ten states have introduced legislation for a moratorium on data center construction, including Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Passage of these bills failed in New Hampshire and Wisconsin, and Maine governor Janet Mills recently vetoed a moratorium bill. No state has yet enacted such a ban.

Georgia, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and South Dakota, states that do not have green electricity mandates, are also considering legislation to halt data center construction. Legislation requiring hyperscalers to build their own onsite power plants and to minimize water usage can be sensible policy. But outright bans will leave states behind.

Last month, Senator Bernie Sanders introduced the “Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act” in the Senate, intending to halt construction of data centers. Representative Ocasio-Cortez plans to introduce a companion bill in the House of Representatives. But these bills are unlikely to pass and, even if passed, are likely to be vetoed by President Trump.

If some states ban construction, hyperscalers will shift to states that will accept data centers and onsite gas power plants. Like Elwood Energy in Illinois, look for companies to close gas plants in green energy states and relocate them to other states with favorable policies. States should rescind their green electricity mandates or expect to be left out of the artificial intelligence revolution.

—————–

Steve Goreham is a speaker on artificial intelligence, energy, the environment, and public policy, and author of four books, including Green Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure. His previous posts at MasterResource can be found here.