US midterms: Data centre expansions spark backlash across political divide

A data centre is a large facility that houses computer servers and the cooling systems needed to keep them running. Companies are building more of them because artificial intelligence requires substantial computing infrastructure, and Pennsylvania has attracted major energy and AI-related investment. The expansion matters because these facilities can affect electricity use, water supplies, public infrastructure and nearby landscapes.

Pennsylvania planned more than 90 data centres. The projects have faced opposition over rising electricity bills, water pollution and the visual impact of large developments. Facilities using water-based cooling can consume large amounts of water, while all data centres require substantial electricity for servers and cooling.

The investment is now facing political resistance. More than a quarter of the planned projects have been stopped or delayed. Governor Josh Shapiro tightened regulations in August, including removing AI projects from the state's fast-track permitting programme. Local opposition is also shaping congressional campaigns.

The planned expansion was extensive: more than 90 data centres were proposed across Pennsylvania. That figure reflects a major build-out of facilities designed to support servers, artificial intelligence and related energy infrastructure. It also explains why the issue has moved beyond individual planning disputes and become a statewide political concern.

The article reports that over a quarter of the projects have since been stopped or delayed. It does not provide an exact number of projects in that group, so the precise total cannot be calculated from the stated figures. The wording indicates that more than one in four proposals faced a significant setback.

The delays followed local opposition. Residents raised concerns about electricity bills, water pollution, landscapes and tax breaks. Some developments are still moving ahead, while others remain contested. The scale of both the proposed expansion and the resistance has made data centres an issue in closely fought congressional races.

A large data centre uses substantial electricity to run servers and power cooling systems. Some facilities also use water-based cooling, which can consume large amounts of water. These demands make data centres more than ordinary buildings: they can place pressure on local utilities and change how communities use shared resources.

Residents in Pennsylvania have raised several connected concerns. They fear that added electricity demand could contribute to higher household bills. They also worry about water pollution and the amount of water used by cooling systems. Large facilities can affect the landscape, changing views and the character of nearby areas. The article presents these as residents' concerns, not guaranteed outcomes for every project.

Those concerns are helping drive opposition. More than a quarter of planned projects have been stopped or delayed. The debate is also influencing regulation and elections, as residents demand more local control and question whether developers should pay infrastructure costs themselves.

Residents are weighing public costs against relatively limited long-term benefits. Data centres need large amounts of electricity, water and infrastructure, while creating relatively few permanent jobs. That makes tax breaks controversial: communities may give up public revenue without receiving enough lasting employment or compensation for the facility's effects.

The same concern applies to direct cash offers. Developers pursuing a rejected project offered residents US$10,000 per household to secure support. Erika Cook questioned what that amount could meaningfully provide, saying it would buy only a quarter of a roof and would not fund a house down payment. Other residents also rejected the payout as insufficient.

The disagreement is therefore about value, not simply party politics. Residents want developers to cover infrastructure costs and avoid special tax breaks. Their opposition has helped delay projects and blur political divisions, while politicians face pressure to represent local interests.

Opposition to data centres has entered the contest between Paige Cognetti, Scranton's Democratic mayor, and Rob Bresnahan, the Republican incumbent. The race is for Pennsylvania's 8th Congressional District, one of the country's most closely contested congressional races. Data centre policy gives voters a local issue connected to bills, jobs, taxes and community control.

Cognetti has accused Bresnahan of supporting developments across northeastern Pennsylvania while holding investments in companies linked to the industry. She wants developers to pay their own infrastructure costs, receive no special tax breaks and hire local union workers. Bresnahan has highlighted efforts to give municipalities more control, although he previously welcomed data centres as possible drivers of economic growth.

In June, Bresnahan introduced a bill protecting municipalities from federal lawsuits by developers seeking to overturn rejected proposals. The issue could therefore affect both candidates' records and their promises about local decision-making. It also reflects a wider alliance between voters who do not usually share a political side.

The article shows local and state governments influencing data centre development in different ways. Municipalities can make decisions on proposals, including rejecting them. Pennsylvania's state government controls permitting rules and can change the process. In August, Governor Josh Shapiro tightened regulations and removed AI projects from the fast-track permitting programme.

The article also describes a legal conflict. Rob Bresnahan introduced a bill to protect municipalities from federal lawsuits by developers seeking to overturn decisions rejecting data centre proposals. This indicates that developers may challenge local decisions in court when they want a rejected project reconsidered or believe a government decision should not stand.

The exact limits of local and state authority are not detailed in the article. What is clear is that approval, regulation and rejection are contested across government levels. Bresnahan's bill, Shapiro's permitting changes and residents' campaigns all point to a struggle over who should control expansion and how much power communities should have.

Artificial intelligence depends on powerful computers to process data and run AI systems. Cloud computing provides computing and storage through remote facilities rather than only through a user's own device. Data centres supply that underlying infrastructure: they house the servers, networks and cooling systems that keep digital services operating. The article links the planned facilities directly to AI-related investment.

AI growth increases demand because more AI applications require more computing work. More computing means companies need additional servers and larger facilities. Those servers generate heat and must be cooled, so expansion also increases electricity needs. Facilities using water-based cooling may consume substantial water. These mechanisms explain why AI growth becomes a physical infrastructure issue.

Pennsylvania illustrates the tension. More than 90 data centres were planned, but over a quarter were stopped or delayed after local opposition. The article does not describe cloud computing in detail, but its connection to data centres is established technical context. AI's growing influence may also reshape political alliances.