Democrats Should Treat Data Centers Like Clean Energy

The backlash against data centers is growing, driven by concerns about their environmental impact, effects on local communities, and demands on public infrastructure. But the backlash is also developing a partisan dimension. Recent polling shows that Democrats are substantially more likely than Republicans to oppose data centers and that support has fallen sharply over the past year, particularly among Democrats. Much of that shift reflects growing concerns about the resources data centers consume. The risk is that legitimate concerns about particular projects become absorbed into a broader partisan narrative in which data centers are treated as inherently harmful.

Those concerns deserve serious attention, but Democrats should be wary of allowing opposition to data centers to become an ideological reflex. The campaign against data centers increasingly resembles the opposition that wind and solar projects have faced for years. Large infrastructure projects create real local impacts, but those impacts can often be managed without abandoning investments that serve broader economic and environmental goals. Democrats once made that case in support of clean energy. They should be careful not to abandon it now that the infrastructure in question is data centers.

Indeed, many objections to data centers closely resemble objections to clean energy projects. Some residents simply do not want large industrial facilities in their communities, whether that means wind turbines altering the landscape, solar farms replacing open land, or massive data centers appearing in rural areas. Others object to noise, whether from wind turbines or the backup generators and cooling equipment associated with data centers.

Similar disputes arise over who bears the costs and who receives the benefits. Private landowners may profit directly by selling or leasing their property, while neighboring residents worry about effects on property values or quality of life. Infrastructure presents another source of tension. Both clean energy projects and data centers require substantial investments in transmission lines, substations, roads, and other supporting infrastructure. Residents understandably worry that public resources or utility customers will ultimately bear costs associated with a private company’s investment, particularly if a developer abandons a project.

The concerns about data centers are not frivolous, but neither were the concerns raised about wind and solar development. The appropriate response was not to halt clean energy construction altogether. Policymakers instead sought ways to reduce conflicts and distribute benefits more broadly. Developers and communities experimented with approaches such as agrivoltaics, which allows solar generation and agricultural production to coexist on the same land.

The broader lesson is not that every concern about new infrastructure proves unfounded. Some problems are real and require meaningful safeguards, while others reflect uncertainty, exaggerated claims, or resistance to development itself. Policymakers should distinguish among them rather than treating every objection as equally persuasive. The same approach should guide data center development, with practical solutions to genuine concerns about water use, electricity costs, noise, land use, and community impacts.

For years, Democrats were among the strongest advocates for deploying clean energy despite local opposition. They correctly recognized that building wind and solar capacity could create jobs, generate local tax revenue, and help build the industries that would underpin the future American economy. That basic judgment remains sound. Clean energy projects are worth pursuing even when individual projects generate controversy and when some of the companies developing them are large, profitable corporations.

The same principle should apply to data centers. The United States is in the midst of a major technological transformation driven by artificial intelligence. Data centers are the physical infrastructure supporting that transformation. They also represent a significant source of construction and investment, often in communities seeking new economic opportunities.

Data center growth can also support clean energy expansion. Major technology companies have made substantial commitments to reduce the carbon intensity of their operations and are investing in new sources of electricity, including wind, solar, and nuclear power. Microsoft’s agreement to support the restart of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant illustrates the scale of investment that growing demand for computing is helping mobilize.

Some communities will reasonably decide that a particular data center proposal is not appropriate for a particular location. Others may demand changes to address concerns about water, electricity, noise, or local infrastructure. Policymakers should take those concerns seriously and ensure that their communities benefit from these infrastructure investments.

But blanket moratoriums and reflexive opposition to data center development treat complex and often addressable challenges as reasons to stop building altogether. The United States does not need to choose between technological progress and protecting communities. Policymakers can establish rules that mitigate genuine harms and fairly allocate costs while allowing investment to proceed. Democrats understood that approach when the infrastructure at issue was wind turbines and solar panels. They should apply the same judgment to the infrastructure powering the next generation of the American economy.

Image credit for social media preview: Chad Davis/Flickr