Following a campaign in which Wisconsin voters frequently cited concerns about data centers and energy affordability as major issues and Democratic candidates for the Legislature touted plans to restart the state’s land conservation program, Wisconsin Democrats are signaling they’ll use their new control of state government to take action on a number of climate and environmental issues. 

“We are going to deliver bold action for Wisconsinites. We are going to lower costs, support our public schools, protect our rights and freedoms, help working families, ensure safe and welcoming communities, hold big corporations accountable, fight back against federal overreach, ensure a clean environment for future generations, and much more,” Rep. Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) said in a statement after being elected to serve as the next speaker of the Assembly.  

Wisconsin Democrats will take over state government at a time when President Donald Trump’s administration has prioritized extractive industries and rolled back environmental protections. 

There are limits to what officials in one state can do to address a global problem like climate change, but state government’s purview over environmental issues includes regulating pollutants in the state’s air, land and water, purchasing and maintaining public land, overseeing the state’s electric utilities and funding efforts to protect the environment. 

As Democrats prepare to take majority control of the Legislature  in January, advocacy groups are pressing Democratic lawmakers to address their concerns both through standalone legislation and in the next state budget — which will dominate the agenda next summer. 

Clean Wisconsin has released a list of its policy priorities for 2027, which include increasing efforts to keep pollutants such as PFAS, nitrates, lead and phosphorus out of the state’s water; providing farmers with more tools to responsibly manage the land; investing in county-level initiatives; regulating data centers; changing how utility companies plan their energy development and expanding renewable energy.

“We’re really focused on pragmatic work, like a long list of on-the-ground programs that help protect our water systems, our groundwater, drinking water, our surface water, and help protect our climate and our air, and put some meaningful guardrails in place around AI data centers,” Amy Barilleaux, a spokesperson for Clean Wisconsin, told the Wisconsin Examiner. “I think people want to hear, ‘Oh, this big thing and that big thing,’ but it takes like a thousand little things to accomplish that big thing.

Barilleaux said that Gov.-elect David Crowley and whomever he appoints to run the state Department of Natural Resources can have a significant effect on environmental protection in the state simply by working to restore the agency’s muscle to what it was before Republicans slashed its staffing and budget under former Gov. Scott Walker. 

“I think it’s not that the DNR doesn’t recognize some authority, but you have to have people to do the work,” she said. “It’s been very difficult with understaffing at some agencies to really be able to do the work they are in statute being asked to do. So that’s a big one as well. We just need to improve the function of our government.”

Utility regulation 

In the days since their electoral victory, Wisconsin Democrats have signaled that their first priority in January will be addressing the affordability concerns that dominated the debate on the campaign trail. For environmental groups, that has led to a focus on how the state regulates its utility companies. 

In recent months, the Public Service Commission — the agency responsible for utility regulation — has taken some actions to prevent data center developments from increasing electric bills and to slow down requests to raise rates. But, Barilleaux said, the commission has also said in its recent decisions that if it’s going to do more, the Legislature needs to give it some help. 

Clean Wisconsin and a number of other groups are pushing for integrated resource planning. Under current law, the state’s utilities are not required to make long-term plans for where they’ll get the energy required to meet the state’s demand. This means that as hyperscale data centers have begun to pop up around the state, the utilities can do whatever they want to meet that increased demand. So far, that has meant extending the life of or planning to build new plants that rely on fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas. 

Moving to integrated resource planning would require that the utilities get their future plans approved by the PSC, which advocates say will encourage them to use energy from sources that are cheaper in the long term, largely solar and wind. 

“Our utilities don’t have to be transparent about what they’re doing, they don’t have to have a big picture where we look at different utilities together for a full statewide energy system in Wisconsin, and that leaves us very vulnerable in this moment, extremely vulnerable as we have these AI data center projects coming in and demanding just intense amounts of energy, historic amounts of energy,” Barilleaux said. “So we’re just sitting here flat-footed with no integrated resource plan. So the Public Service Commission … when it approved the latest two gas plants, it was almost a cry for help, saying, ‘We can’t, we don’t have any authority to do anything about this,’ and that should be alarming to everyone. Even though integrated resource planning does not sound like a super exciting topic, when you see how things are unfolding here in Wisconsin, when you see the Public Service Commission saying we need help from lawmakers right now — we’re expecting lawmakers to take that very seriously.”

PFAS

Barilleaux said that another big priority for Clean Wisconsin is doing more to clean up PFAS contamination in the state’s water. 

Over the last year, the Legislature and Gov. Tony Evers have finally passed legislation to spend $125 million set aside for PFAS mitigation after years of partisan deadlock. The Natural Resources Board recently established a standard for the amount of PFAS allowed to be in the state’s groundwater after years of failed efforts. 

Barilleaux said more money beyond that previous appropriation is needed to address the full scope of the problem statewide and added she’d like to see a total ban on the use of PFAS in the state. 

“We need to take this seriously. We can’t pretend like it’s not happening. We can’t pretend like groundwater standards and surface water standards and drinking water standards are it, because it’s not,” she said. “It is over $100 million a year in health harms that PFAS exposure is causing right here in Wisconsin, and so these are tremendous costs. I think sometimes things get characterized as, you know, cost versus environmental protection, or jobs versus environmental protection, but really, this is people’s health on the line. It is expensive to be sick from pollution and contamination. You know, this is about protecting the health of our communities.” 

Knowles-Nelson

Among the most divisive environmental issues during the last legislative session was the failure to reauthorize the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant Program, which for nearly four decades had allowed the DNR to fund the purchase and maintenance of public land. 

A faction of Republicans in control of the Legislature had become hostile to the program — which had previously enjoyed bipartisan support — over broad objections to government land conservation and more specific complaints about the hit to local property tax revenues that can be caused by state land purchases. 

Multiple compromise bills were proposed, but nothing was able to pass and the program expired this summer. The reauthorization of the program was a campaign issue in some of the legislative races that helped Democrats win majority control. 

Charles Carlin, the director of strategic initiatives at the land conservation nonprofit Gathering Waters, told the Examiner that Democratic control opens up new possibilities for what the program can become, balancing how much money is spent purchasing new public land and how much is spent developing existing public land into both usable space for recreation and wildlife habitat. 

“It feels like everybody is sort of absorbing the ramifications of the elections, what’s possible,” Carlin said. “But I think that certainly one of the things that you know that we are looking at now is it feels like there is a real opportunity here to have a long-term authorization for Knowles Nelson, one that is appropriately funded, and I think the other thing we’re looking at is there’s an opportunity to rebalance the program between development projects and land acquisition.” 

He said it’s helpful not to have to negotiate with people who are hostile to the idea of public land conservation and added that the complaints about dwindling local government revenue on this issue tie in to coming debates about local government funding in general that are likely to play a major role in the work of the new government. 

“Local government revenue is likely to be a hot topic of conversation in the next legislative session on all kinds of issues,” Carlin said. “So public lands is one small one, but shared revenue, school funding, transportation — these are all going to be things that get talked about and considered a lot. But I do want to see a renewed emphasis on DNR soliciting input from local governments on projects that are happening in their jurisdiction and taking those viewpoints and that feedback into account. I also think that if the conversation in the Legislature can be more fact-based and less driven by an anti-conservation ideology, then I think that creates the space for us to have a really solution-focused conversation about how tax and land use policy really impacts local government revenues.”

SNOQUALMIE, Wash. — In the race to meet the nation’s growing power demands, states and utilities are rapidly building new “battery farms” that can store energy for when customers need it most. But as the facilities grow, so too does community opposition.

The systems store banks of batteries in buildings or shipping containers. While they can take many forms, developers are increasingly building large, multi-acre projects designed to meet the needs of local utilities. 

The electricity stored by such systems nationwide has grown tenfold since 2022, and it’s projected to double again by the end of 2028. State lawmakers and renewable energy advocates say battery storage is urgently needed to stabilize the grid and support the transition to clean power. 

But in some communities, residents are wary of proposals to build industrial battery systems in their neighborhoods, noting that battery fires can produce toxic smoke and are difficult to extinguish. As the backlash has grown, nearly 200 communities have passed or proposed moratoriums to block battery farms from being built near them.

Backers say modern systems are designed to be much safer than previous versions, with data showing that fire risk has dropped significantly. But some industry leaders fear the perception of danger — along with a rising tide of community activism stirred by the buildout of data centers — could threaten an industry that’s becoming integral to the nation’s energy future.

‘Meteoric growth’

Most energy storage on the U.S. grid takes the form of battery energy storage systems, commonly known as BESS. Such facilities host banks of batteries, typically lithium-ion — a technology that has become more capable and cost-effective with the development of electric vehicles. 

At present, battery storage capacity nationwide exceeds 50 gigawatts, up from just 5 gigawatts at the beginning of 2022. Another 54 gigawatts is slated to come online in the next two and a half years. That projected total of more than 100 gigawatts would be enough to power roughly 75 million homes, although battery farms are designed to provide electricity for one to four hours, as opposed to the more continuous supply of conventional power plants. 

“The meteoric growth is continuing,” said Noah Roberts, executive director of the U.S. Energy Storage Coalition, an industry group. “For state policymakers who are focused on the energy transition and decarbonizing the grid, (battery) storage is essential.”

Policymakers and energy planners have increasingly pushed for battery farms as more renewable energy sources have come online. Solar farms, for instance, can produce massive amounts of cheap electricity during the afternoon hours — but peak demand is in the evening, when people get home from work and turn on household appliances. 

With batteries on the grid, that surplus solar energy can be stored and saved for when it’s needed, instead of firing up more costly “peaker” gas plants to meet evening demand. 

Industry leaders say battery systems can also improve reliability and affordability, even in states without clean energy goals. They note that Texas and California are home to a majority of the battery projects on the grid so far. While typically on opposite ends of the political spectrum, both states produce large amounts of wind and solar energy, while facing heavy power demands that have at times required energy conservation measures and put the grid at risk of blackouts. Battery systems, backers say, have already stabilized their grids considerably. 

Adding to the appeal of battery farms is the fact that they can be put in place quickly, in a matter of months, compared with much longer timelines for other energy projects. 

“As we’re dealing with a power supply crisis, energy storage is the obvious solution for adding capacity and getting more out of the grid that we’ve already paid for,” Roberts said. 

State policies have been a driver of the industry’s growth. Thirteen states have enacted targets requiring their utilities to deploy certain amounts of energy storage by specific dates. 

In Maryland, Democratic Del. Lorig Charkoudian authored a law in 2025 directing state regulators to issue bids for projects totaling 1,600 megawatts of energy storage. 

“It’s basically a no-regret path,” Charkoudian said in an interview earlier this year. “Over time once we bring more renewables on, they will be that much more valuable because there’s battery storage.”

Charkoudian noted that the Trump administration has stalled permitting for offshore wind and other renewable projects, while phasing out clean energy tax credits. The federal push against those forms of energy has made battery farms a more attractive option, as they’ve met with less resistance and still qualify for a 30% tax credit. 

Community concerns

For all of the potential that battery farms offer the grid, some communities are not eager to host them. Much of the opposition centers around the risk for out-of-control fires and toxic smoke. 

Most prominently, the Moss Landing Power Plant in Monterey County, California, caught fire in early 2025, burned for several days and released 55,000 pounds of toxic metals into nearby wetlands. 

Lithium-ion batteries, when ignited, can trigger a reaction known as thermal runaway that is nearly impossible to extinguish. Across the country, community activists have been alarmed to see battery farms proposed near schools, playgrounds and senior care facilities. 

“They’re making us collateral damage,” said Phoenix Artemisia, an activist in Watsonville, California, who has helped lead efforts to oppose a proposed battery storage facility there. “We have 12 schools within two miles of us here, but these out-of-state developers are telling us what we’re going to do in our backyard.” 

The Watsonville project has stirred up significant community opposition, Artemisia said, prompting the developer to seek approval from state regulators in order to bypass local officials. 

Industry leaders say the Moss Landing facility was built using an older design, prior to the issuance of safety standards from the National Fire Protection Association that cover most systems on the grid today. Newer projects use an updated battery chemistry that burns at lower temperatures, and store the batteries in isolated, modular containers so that fires don’t spread to nearby units. 

As a result, battery fires have become much more rare and far less devastating. Earlier this month, the Electric Power Research Institute, an independent nonprofit, published an analysis of battery system failures dating back to 2011. 

The report found that failures (defined as large thermal events such as arc flashes, fires or explosions) have declined 97% in the U.S. since 2018, when adjusted for the amount of battery power on the grid. The incidents that have happened in new systems have largely remained small and contained, said Lakshmi Srinivasan, who authored the analysis. 

“Specific design choices have really reduced not only the likelihood of a failure, but the impact of a failure if it happens,” she told Stateline. 

Srinivasan said the risk profile of battery farms is similar to that of electrical transformers, components of the electrical grid that already exist in many communities. 

But some communities feel a slim chance of disaster is still too high. Residents in Snoqualmie, Washington, have voiced opposition to a proposed battery project just outside city limits, prompting the city and several neighboring communities to enact moratoriums on such facilities. 

“We need to think more carefully about what the worst-case scenario is, not just what’s typical,” said Dan Murphy, a council member in the city of Snoqualmie. “The science says (battery farms) are getting safer, but we’re still early.” 

Amid the local backlash, the developer, Jupiter Power, has indicated that it will pursue approval from state-level energy siting regulators, removing the project from King County jurisdiction. 

Murphy said his community supports clean energy, but objected to the site location near homes, a playground, a waterway and a critical evacuation route. He said Jupiter Power kept locals in the dark until they thought the project was a done deal. 

“We are a very reserved and polite community,” he said. “To see the outcry and the animation and the mobilization, it’s really struck a nerve with our residents.” 

In a document responding to community concerns, Jupiter Power noted that battery farms must be built near substations, which are located in close proximity to the communities they serve. That reality, the company said, makes it unrealistic for local officials to demand that battery systems keep their distance from populated areas. In King County, the company found, all 157 substations that are suitable for a battery project are located within a quarter-mile of schools, daycares, hospitals, natural areas or other sensitive sites.

Jupiter Power did not grant an interview request, but referred questions to Clean and Prosperous, a Washington-based nonprofit focused on reducing emissions.  

“For any battery storage project there will inherently already be energy infrastructure nearby,” said Kelsey Nyland, communications director with Clean and Prosperous. “It often feels like we expect clean energy projects to be perfect in a way that we don’t expect from fossil fuel projects.”

Nyland noted that Washington state ranks dead last in the nation for clean energy growth, despite its ambitious climate goals. Battery storage, she said, can help population centers in western Washington harness surplus wind and solar power from rural eastern Washington. 

She added that Washington has only one operational battery storage facility, making it difficult to alleviate local’s concerns by touring a nearby site. 

Similar disputes have played out in dozens of communities across the country, and many have passed temporary measures banning the construction of battery storage facilities. 

Earlier this month, a pair of former economic officials from the Biden administration wrote in The Washington Post that battery farms had been caught in a case of “mistaken identity” amid the nationwide backlash to data centers, which have stirred up similar feelings about industrial siting and environmental risks. But while data centers increase pressure on the grid, battery farms reduce it, they wrote, making the “conflation” an expensive mistake. 

Some local activists have asked for battery farms to be sited in remote areas, where they would pose fewer risks. But industry leaders say they’re simply following the incentives set forth by utilities, which prioritize projects that can connect to the grid near population centers. 

“If you have a source of power right where the power’s being consumed, the more efficient your system’s going to be,” Malaquias Encarnacion, managing director with Carina Energy, a development services firm that works on battery storage projects. 

Carina Energy has tracked 175 battery farm moratoriums enacted or proposed by communities across the country. In some cases, Encarnacion said, those actions have been temporary measures enacted by local governments to give themselves time to learn about the issue. 

“If I didn’t know anything about it, I would be nervous as well,” he said, encouraging developers to engage with communities early to alleviate those concerns. 

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.

Wisconsin is facing another major test of how it plans its energy future.

We Energies has proposed a new 750-megawatt natural gas plant in Wrightstown, the Fox North Energy Center. If approved, it could begin operating around 2032 and run for 30 years or more. With Fox North added to the queue, We Energies now has roughly 4.25 gigawatts of methane gas generation awaiting Public Service Commission approval.

The utility says the buildout is needed to meet rapidly growing electricity demand and maintain reliability. Data centers are a major part of that growth.

But projected demand does not make new gas plants inevitable.

Wisconsin is being asked to make decades-long energy decisions based on electricity demand forecasts that are changing faster than our regulatory system. That is exactly why new methane gas plants must first prove they are the cleanest, lowest-cost, lowest-risk option before customers are committed to paying for them.

Before Wisconsin commits customers to decades of fuel costs and long-lived infrastructure, regulators should ask a more important question: What combination of resources can meet that demand reliably, affordably and with the least long-term risk?

That means comparing new gas plants not just with one solar farm or one battery project, but with complete portfolios of solar, wind, storage, energy efficiency, transmission, distributed resources, nuclear power and demand flexibility.

Other states, including Minnesota and North Carolina, have already shown that regulators can challenge utility assumptions and require closer examination of alternatives rather than treating new gas plants as the default response to projected load growth.

Wisconsin can do the same.

That approach is already gaining support in Wisconsin, including among labor leaders who see comprehensive energy planning as an opportunity to create good-paying jobs.

Climate Jobs Wisconsin, whose leadership includes representatives of Wisconsin building trades and construction unions, recently advanced a “35 by ’35” clean-energy and good-jobs agenda. The proposal envisions roughly 35 gigawatts of new clean-energy resources by 2035, including storage, utility-scale solar, wind, nuclear generation and networked distributed power. A plan  developed by the PSC would map what gets built, where and when, establish resource targets and create a grid-investment roadmap.

That is exactly the kind of planning Wisconsin needs.

Whether policymakers ultimately adopt those exact numbers is less important than the principle behind them: Evaluate the whole system before locking customers into decades of costs.

And expanding clean energy does not have to mean sacrificing Wisconsin’s best farmland or open space.

Renewable development can be directed toward brownfields, marginal and previously disturbed lands, rooftops, parking structures, industrial parks, sites near substations and existing infrastructure. Solar can also be integrated with agricultural production through agrivoltaics, allowing farming and energy production to coexist rather than compete.

Wisconsin should be able to protect prime agricultural land while dramatically expanding clean energy. Those goals are compatible if we plan carefully.

The jobs case matters, too.

Climate Jobs Wisconsin’s agenda is built around creating clean-energy careers with prevailing wages, registered apprenticeships and local hiring. It proposes tying those labor standards to PSC approvals and expanding Wisconsin’s ability to build new energy infrastructure with skilled union labor.

That is important because Wisconsin’s energy transition should not be framed as a choice between workers and the environment.

Done well, it is an industrial green growth strategy.

It can create careers for electricians, operating engineers, laborers, carpenters, pipefitters and other skilled trades while reducing exposure to volatile fuel costs and strengthening Wisconsin manufacturing.

The rapid growth of data centers makes this kind of comprehensive planning even more important.

Wisconsin families, farmers, manufacturers and existing businesses should not become the financial backstop for those investments.

If a gas plant is justified largely by projected data-center demand, regulators should determine how certain that demand really is, what alternatives were considered, who will pay for the plant and who bears the stranded-cost risk if forecasts change.

Transparency is equally important.

That means disclosing projected electricity and water use, infrastructure requirements, tax arrangements and long-term impacts before commitments become difficult to reverse.

It also means using transparent Community Benefit Agreements, so benefits are public, measurable and enforceable.

Transparency is not anti-development. It is how responsible development earns trust.

Wisconsin does not have an electricity shortage. It has a planning challenge.

The choice before us is not new gas or reliability. It is whether Wisconsin evaluates all available resources together before committing customers to another generation of long-term fossil fuel infrastructure costs.

The Fox North proposal gives Wisconsin another opportunity to get that right.

A new gas plant should have to prove it is necessary. It should not be treated as inevitable.

WASHINGTON — The rare 2026 issue that draws huge support from Republicans and Democrats in Congress is the same one that’s mobilized many Americans: restrictions on giant data centers.

The House has overwhelmingly passed legislation forcing state regulators to consider requirements that data centers absorb the cost of the electricity they use. 

But there’s more to be done, say data center critics, and they’re finding there is no easy or even obvious answer about what to do next.

Leave it to state and local governments to decide whether and how the centers should function? Should their size be restricted? Should they be banned altogether?

The future of data centers has become a flashpoint in this year’s congressional races. It’s woven into the debate about affordability, artificial intelligence and corporate influence on government.

“People see big energy cost increases and say data centers must be the reason,” said Daniel Birdsong, senior lecturer in political science at the University of Dayton.

Before leaving Washington for an extended recess not due to end until after the election, the House voted Wednesday 417-3 on a bill that requires states to consider having data centers using large amounts of electricity pay the full additional cost of that generation, as well as transmission and distribution upgrades that are needed.

Obstacles to action

The vote was only a prologue for action. There’s no clear next chapter, as skepticism is coming from critics at the White House and among progressives.

The biggest obstacle appears to be President Donald Trump.

“The people that say AI is going to destroy the World, and that Data Centers are bad for your neighborhood, are the same people that said, just a short time ago, that the World would be extinguished by ‘Climate Change,’” he said on his Truth Social site Monday.

“That HOAX never worked out for them, and now they’re on to the next one. These people are Revolutionaries, but Revolutionaries for a Bad and Evil Cause. Soon you’ll find out they’re working for people that do not have the best interests of the United States in mind!”

Senate leaders have not said how or if they’ll take up the House bill, or any other data center legislation.

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., the Senate’s second-ranking Democrat, was not optimistic.

“There aren’t many alternatives to a president who thinks this is a wonderful asset and communities who think just the opposite,” he said.

The lawmakers know this much: Their constituents don’t like data centers. 

“I’ve never seen people come together across the political spectrum like I have the last few months on concerns about big tech, concerns around AI, concerns around data center development,” said Rep. Chris Pappas, D-N.H.

A national University of Massachusetts Amherst Poll released this week showed just 11% said they backed the construction of the data centers in their local area. Sixty-five percent were opposed, and about half said they were strongly opposed.

“Opposition to AI data centers has emerged as one of these rare areas of consensus,” said poll director Tatishe Nteta.

The political divide

Solutions tend to fall along three very general lines: A complete ban or moratorium; giving state and local governments more tools to regulate the centers; and withdrawing federal support.

Putting pressure on utility companies appears to have the most legislative traction. Rep. Rob Latta, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Energy Subcommittee, found the House-passed legislation would protect consumers from runaway center-inspired utility rates.

The bill, he said, “protects American ratepayers from being forced to cover the cost of energy infrastructure upgrades needed to support data centers.”

Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Fla., one of the bill’s lead sponsors, saw the measure as help for constituents facing affordability issues. “Data centers cannot come at a cost to neighbors who are already facing high grocery, gas, utility, health care and housing costs,” she said.

At the Edison Electric Institute, which represents the nation’s investor-owned electric companies, Drew Maloney, president and CEO, said in a statement that he appreciated Congress’ work and that EEI’s members “will continue working in lockstep to ensure large customers cover the costs of the energy infrastructure they use, and communities have a strong voice from the beginning of the planning process.”  

But some environmental activists saw big flaws in the bill.

“With only a weak directive to states to voluntarily consider adopting cost protections against the energy costs of data centers for ratepayers, state regulators could ultimately choose to ignore this bill,” said Sara Chieffo, senior vice president for government affairs at the League of Conservation Voters. 

A report last year from the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that in 2023, data centers used roughly 4.4% of total electricity in this country. It forecast that the figure could double or triple by 2028 to meet the needs of more data, notably from artificial intelligence.

Consumers’ costs are generally figured by how much it costs to generate and deliver electricity. State and local regulators usually set those rates.

Looking ahead 

While the House bill had strong Democratic support, many in the party wanted to go further.

“It’s a step forward,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-New York, told reporters when asked about the House bill. “But more needs to be done.”

That could include some sort of ban, or at least a moratorium, on building more centers, an approach favored by many Democratic progressives.

“Communities should have the right to say ‘no’ to a data center being shoved down their throats,” Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., told colleagues in a floor speech. 

In the Senate, some Democrats sent a strong signal that they wanted to do more than the House bill provided.

The bill “does nothing to meaningfully address the rising costs of AI data center development. Instead, it relies on a voluntary framework that does not require AI data centers to pay the full cost of the energy they consume or the strain they place on the grid,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

“We need legislation that makes AI data centers pay their fair share and actually protects families,” he said. 

Among this week’s efforts was new legislation from a group of House Democrats to end certain currently available federal tax incentives available to data centers.

“Tax cuts need to go to families, not data centers. We absolutely should not cut healthcare and food assistance for children and seniors to pay for tax giveaways to corporations,” said Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet, D-Mich., one of the bill’s lead sponsors, at a Capitol Hill press conference.

“Why incentivize this right now?” asked Rep. Don Davis, D-N.C., another top sponsor.

Political fallout

Find a close House or Senate race and chances are good there’s a brawl between candidates over who can best deal with the data center issue.

In Ohio, Sen. Jon Husted, a Republican, is in a close battle with former Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat.

Husted is the lead sponsor of the Senate ratepayer protection bill. Husted tried to get the Senate to consider the measure Thursday but it was blocked by Heinrich.

Asked why he doesn’t support a ban, Husted said, “Whether you want a data center should be a local decision. What we should do is protect the ratepayers from bearing the burden of the cost of building the electricity those data centers use.”

Husted is in a difficult position, Birdsong said, because his call for limits on data centers “puts him at odds with Trump.”

Close House races have similar fights. In Michigan, Rep. Tom Barrett, a Republican, is campaigning as the voice of the consumer.

One way to deal with data centers, he said, is by “stopping federal overreach and preventing the secrecy pledges that have plagued Michigan and undermined the power of local residents.”

The House, though, left Washington and won’t be back voting until a lame-duck session starting Nov. 8, sparking outrage from Democrats.

“That means ZERO votes on lowering costs, ending corruption, addressing AI, or responding to the Iran war before Election Day,” tweeted Rep. Johnny Olszewski Jr., D-Md. 

The Senate’s scheduled to be around through September, but there’s no sign it will take a close look at the data center issue. The big hope is that it will continue to be discussed back home and lawmakers will return ready to act or at least debate.

“We have to understand, ‘What’s the real implication here?’” Davis said.