Crowley vs. Tiffany on data centers: where they actually agree
Wisconsin gubernatorial candidates David Crowley and Tom Tiffany both agree developers should cover data center infrastructure and electricity costs and oppose a statewide moratorium. Their differences lie in state incentives, with Tiffany wanting to end them and Crowley proposing tougher requirements like 100% renewable energy and union labor. The debate also touches on local control and federal legislative actions related to AI infrastructure.
The Wisconsin governor's race features a growing debate over data centers, with candidates David Crowley and Tom Tiffany discussing their stances on the issue. While both agree that data center developers should bear the costs for additional infrastructure and electricity, rather than passing them to state ratepayers, and neither supports a statewide moratorium, their approaches to state incentives and regulations differ significantly.
Tiffany, while critical of data centers on the campaign trail, previously voted for the federal SPEED Act, which aims to expedite permitting for major infrastructure projects, including those supporting AI. He also supported a federal budget package that included a proposed 10-year ban on state and local AI regulation, a provision later removed by the Senate. Tiffany advocates for ending state sales and use tax exemptions for data centers, which the Legislative Fiscal Bureau estimates could result in over $2 billion in uncollected revenue. He also suggests data centers should secure their own dedicated power sources.
Conversely, Crowley proposes keeping state incentives but with stricter conditions. He wants data centers receiving state support to commit to 100% renewable energy and utilize union labor through project labor agreements and community benefit agreements. Building trades unions have supported Crowley, emphasizing the potential for high-paying construction jobs. Both candidates agree on the importance of local community input and oppose the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) that can obscure development negotiations from the public.