Ask a Scientist: A Data Center Was Proposed in My Town. Now What?
The Equation Read More
On the outskirts of Philadelphia, the city I call home, a recent development proposal caught my eye: a whopping 1.4 million square foot data center. That’s nearly the same square footage of Philly’s largest skyscraper. The project proposal has already secured 750 megawatts (MW) of energy from my local utility, which my back-of-the-napkin-math suggests is enough to power roughly 500,000 homes.
It’s like an entire mid-sized city is being built, and most folks I’ve spoken to had no idea it was even in the works.
The proposal raised alarms for a few reasons. A UCS report last fall outlined the way billions of dollars in data center costs are already being shouldered by ratepayers in Pennsylvania and six other neighboring states. Considering my electricity bill has already increased 68% year-over-year, I’m not eager for it to climb even higher. And considering the vast environmental impacts of artificial intelligence use, I’m not eager to see my community pay the physical toll either.
So, I asked Maria Fernanda Chavez, a UCS Energy Analyst and one of the authors of the recent UCS Data Center Power Playreport,to help me understand exactly what these proposals mean and what we can do about it.
Q: Let’s start with the source: what—and who—are driving this data center boom?
MARIA CHAVEZ: Data centers are a general term for facilities that house IT infrastructure which stores and processes data for businesses. They have been around for a long time, but in the last few years the heavy investment in artificial intelligence (AI) has driven the development of “hyperscale” data centers that can use as much electricity as entire cities.
These hyperscale data centers—like the one proposed in the outskirts of Philadelphia—are capturing attention nationwide because of just how massive they are, which consequentially means they come with exponential energy demands and more severe environmental impacts, especially if they are powered with fossil fuels. The rapid and staggering degree of investment in AI is driving the desire from investors for these data centers to be deployed as quickly as possible. Big tech companies like Meta, OpenAI, and Amazon are investing billions of dollars into building data centers, but they’re not the only proponents. (My colleague Paul Arbaje has covered one such case in Louisiana, where local utility Entergy fast-tracked three new gas plants for a massive data center, with ratepayers set to subsidize the costs.)
Investor-owned electric utilities also see a benefit in data center development because it means they have more reason to invest in (and earn a guaranteed rate of return on) the energy infrastructure that powers data centers. (And remember, the same for-profit utility companies keen to pass these costs on to you are pulling in billions in profit each year. Wisconsin-based WEC Energy Group just reported pulling in a staggering $1.6 billion in profits in 2025.)
And the fossil fuel industry at large may see data centers as lifelines and jump at the opportunity to power them.
Q: Yikes. If fossil fuel companies are backing these proposals, what does that mean for the environmental impact of these data centers?
MC: Beyond questioning if we should be letting these proposals go through carte blanche, interrogating how we are powering data centers is tremendously important. As it stands right now, without strong clean energy policies or regulatory guardrails, many data centers being proposed would be powered with fossil fuels like methane gas.
Pushing for the construction of new fossil fuel power plants or keeping coal plants alive past their planned retirement age are strategies being pursued by utilities, meaning that a data center popping-up in your hometown might be bringing toxic air pollutants with it. The implications for fetal and early childhood development, cancer risk, and cardiovascular health are dire—and the Trump administration’s recent move to gut common-sense air pollution standards stands to make these impacts more severe.
And that’s just one dimension. A lot of these data centers rely on gas or diesel generators too, which brings harmful air pollution and noise pollution. They also use a huge amount of water, not only to cool the data centers—which generate a ton of heat as part of their data processing—but indirectly from the thermal generators powering these data centers.
Q: And somehow, folks like you and me could end up covering the costs for data centers to be brought online and keep them running?
MC: You’re going to hear me say it again and again, but that’s why ratepayer awareness and ratepayer protections are so critical right now. Folks need to know when these projects are being proposed, and the public deserves a seat at the table when setting the terms for how these data centers operate. Without public input and protections, ratepayers could end up getting stuck with the bill.
The increasing demand in data centers puts more pressure on the power grid, which means increased costs to build more generation, more transmission, and more distribution to keep up. My colleague Mike Jacobs found that ratepayers in seven states, including PA, were on the hook for at least $8 billion over the last two years just for transmission upgrades to connect data centers to the grid. When you consider the fact that, once online, these campuses are going to gobble up immense amounts of energy, it’s easy to see how those costs might end up hitting your wallet and mine.
But, it doesn’t have to be this way. Per our latest report, enacting policies to decarbonize the US power sector will ensure we can meet the projected growth in electricity demand from data centers with clean energy, while avoiding $1.6 trillion from harmful climate and health costs over the next decade. We can also enact comprehensive ratepayer protections so that regardless of the energy policy pathway we take, regular folks don’t bear the burden of data center costs.
Q: Clean energy and ratepayer protections seem like two core tenets worth fighting for.
MC: Certainly—there is no panacea or perfect solution, but these are essential pieces to protect our communities and our environment. In that sense, the implications of this report are twofold. First, communities can use this report to counter industry narratives that toxic fossil fuels are a prerequisite to get data centers online. Clean renewables such as wind and solar combined with energy storage can do the job just as well, without putting our health and climate at risk.
We also lay out six recommendations community members can bring to decision makers to ensure Big Tech companies are paying their fair share and deploying new clean energy sources. The truth is that there is no single decision maker who signs off on a data center.
It ranges from folks in local city councils to state legislators and regulators, to federal agencies and members of Congress. And then there are regulatory decision bodies at the regional level, too. It’s a pretty wide web of folks, and it can feel intimidating to know where to start.
All the same, it is vitally important to understand which decision points occur where. We might see city governments approving permitting that would allow a data center to move forward. At the state level, we might see legislation that sets out the terms for how data centers can operate. A state public utility commission will have a say in how utilities can allocate data center costs. Federally, regulatory commissions can set out terms for covering grid expansion costs.
Q: Wow, that’s a lot of decisionmakers. Where do I even start?
MC: Start by making your voice heard by your state officials—we’ve got this tool set-up so you can contact your representatives and demand they protect ratepayers like you and me. It’s not necessarily a binary “yes or no” on all data centers. We’re asking for common-sense protections that ask the investors pumping millions of dollars into these proposals, and who stand to gain billions in profits, to cough up their fair share of the costs.
And then I’d encourage you to go to the elected officials at the local level, and come prepared with both your concerns and solutions. You can use this data center map to see proposals that are nearby, and share that with your legislator. You can ask for them to advocate on your behalf, and commit to pushing for transparency and accountability.
Q: Transparency feels vital. It’s hard to even know these proposals exist, much less the scale and the implications. Especially for those of us who aren’t scientists!
MC: Absolutely, and that’s why the public deserves information and access to both the stakeholders pushing these proposals and the officials making decisions on these proposals. We have the right to be informed and to be a part of the decision-making and approval process. And we’ve seen communities across the country stand up, fight back, and beat proposals that don’t measure up to these basic standards.
The easiest place to get plugged in is at the local level. Simply put, we must show up at venues where these kinds of proposals are being discussed and made. We need to make sure that communities are informed about what’s happening in their backyards. Ask your neighbors, talk to your friends, show up at city council meetings, show up at public utility commission meetings, and share both your concerns—like health impacts and affordability issues—and what you want: accountability and ratepayer protections.
Your personal voice is so important. Pair the power of your personal story with a clear ask: like accountability for costs, commitments to clean energy sources, reliance on battery storage instead of diesel generators for back-up power, and public disclosures on power needs, water usage and emissions to name a few options. In addition to our report, which lays out these recommendations, there are so many groups who have the expertise and have developed resources to get you started, like this guide from Media Justice and Kairos. You don’t have to start from scratch in your advocacy.
And I’ll close with this reminder: elected officials work for us and should be accountable to us. At every level, they should be putting your best interest first—and it’s important they hear your voice loud and clear.