Ohio lawmakers pick the wrong path on data-center review

The Ohio's General Assembly's nifty new committee on data centers leaves a lot to be desired. Unlike the commission to study data centers that would be created under a bill put forward by state Rep. Kellie Deeter, R-Norwalk, the committee isn't tasked with making recommendations about how to deal with data centers, which fuel the artificial intelligence boom. (The Ohio House unanimously passed an amended version of Deeter's bill in March, but it has stalled in the Senate.) Rather, the committee is designed to gather information and distribute it to a public that is increasingly wary of not only data centers but AI in general. The committee's chairmen, state Rep. Adam Holmes, R-Nashport, and state Sen. Brian Chavez, R-Marietta, did say that the committee might make some recommendations, but what they described sounded more like a public-relations campaign than anything else. "The mission of this committee is to ensure that Ohio citizens have accurate, relevant and usable information concerning the economic, environmental, and security impacts of Ohio data-center development," Holmes said. There's a fine line between disseminating information and churning out propaganda, and after watching Holmes and Chavez's news conference, we came away with the impression that they fall on the pro-data center side of the debate. "Energy and information are not only the economic drivers for the 21st century; they are also a national security imperative," Holmes said, according to a news release. "It's crucial Ohio establishes sound data-center development policies that benefit all Ohioans." When we asked Deeter, who represents part of Lorain County, about our concerns with the committee's direction, she told us that she shared them. "My concern is that it could lean toward a pro-data center position rather than serving as a neutral, fact-finding body that objectively evaluates both the opportunities and the challenges these developments present," she told us via text message. "If the process is perceived as predetermined or one-sided, it will do little to build public trust, and earning that trust is exactly what communities across Ohio are desperately seeking right now." In fairness, the committee's leaders acknowledged that many Ohioans were worried about the proliferation of data centers. "Some Ohioans are troubled by reports of exorbitant water use, negative land and wildlife impacts, excessive sound, light and electromagnetic emissions, and increased local energy costs," Holmes said during the news conference. Those are only some of the concerns. For example, while data centers certainly generate construction jobs, they don't need that many workers to operate. Additionally, folks in rural areas are worried that building massive data centers in the middle of former farm fields would destroy their way of life. That's part of why the Brownhelm Township trustees announced last week that they were opposed to data centers and were taking steps, including examining new zoning regulations, to prevent any from being built there. It isn't just townships that want to hit pause on the possibility of data-center development in their communities. Avon and Wellington, for example, have passed moratoriums on data-center construction, and Sheffield has considered one. Then there's the citizen-driven initiative to amend the Ohio Constitution to limit the size of data centers. Organizers need more than 400,000 signatures to get the issue on the ballot, which may or may not happen this year. The Ohio Capital Journal reported that there are roughly 200 data centers in the Buckeye State. More are on the horizon, which is what makes figuring out how to handle them so important. That's why we liked Deeter's commission proposal, which under the amended bill would include experts with knowledge about local government, public utilities, agriculture and data-center operations, to name just a few. The committee, by contrast, will be made up entirely of state lawmakers, six Republicans and two Democrats. The chairs suggested that Deeter and a few other lawmakers would be involved in the process even if they weren't on the committee. Deeter, however, told us that she had learned about her alleged involvement during their remarks and that she didn't anticipate any involvement. The chairs said they wanted to hear from a wide swath of people and organizations, including the massive tech companies driving data-center growth. Chavez said that the committee would move faster on the question of data centers than the commission would. (His remark conveniently ignored the fact that had the Senate passed Deeter's bill months ago, the commission already would be hard at work.) "One of the primary goals of my proposal was not only to study the impacts of data center development," Deeter told us, "but also to develop clear best practices and guidance for local governments that are increasingly being asked to evaluate these projects with limited resources or expertise. Communities across Ohio, particularly smaller townships and municipalities, are desperate for that kind of framework and support." She's right. What Ohio needs is a strategy for managing data centers, not a public-relations campaign, which is what the committee appears poised to provide.