Gaskin: Data centers must carry their own energy weight
An opinion piece argues that Massachusetts needs stronger public rules to govern the rapid buildout of AI infrastructure, particularly large-scale data centers. The author emphasizes the need for data centers to bear their own energy and water costs and minimize environmental impact. Proposed legislation from Senator Vanna Howard aims to address these concerns by requiring clean energy, water management, and community benefits.
Ed Gaskin, Executive Director of Greater Grove Hall Main Streets, asserts that while artificial intelligence offers significant value, its infrastructure buildout, specifically data centers, must be governed by public rules rather than private urgency. He highlights the ecological costs, including extensive water and electricity consumption, backup generators, land use, emissions, noise, and subsidies, which burden host communities.
Gaskin supports Governor Maura Healey’s energy affordability legislation but argues that Massachusetts cannot ignore the rising electricity demand from large-scale data centers. He distinguishes between necessary data centers and 'bad data centers'—those built without transparency, strong environmental standards, ratepayer protection, or meaningful community benefits. He cites the work of Halt the Harm Network’s Stop Bad Data Centers project, which helps communities understand regulatory decision points.
The environmental justice community in Massachusetts is advocating for stronger data center language in the Senate's energy bill. Senator Vanna Howard's proposed amendment, which Gaskin strongly endorses, seeks to define large data centers and mandate that new or expanded facilities procure 100% new clean energy. It also proposes requiring applicants for fossil-fuel backup power to demonstrate the infeasibility of solar-plus-storage, shift backup energy away from fossil fuels, and ensure data centers cover the costs of any fossil-fuel infrastructure expansions they necessitate. Furthermore, the amendment calls for water-management plans, cumulative impact analysis, noise compliance, community benefit agreements, public reporting of energy and water use, continuous environmental monitoring, and utility tariffs to protect ratepayers from infrastructure costs driven by data center demand.
Gaskin concludes that Massachusetts must proactively shape the AI economy through democratic accountability, clean energy, transparency, and ratepayer protection, rather than allowing corporate interests to dictate terms that could harm lower-income communities, rural towns, and environmental justice neighborhoods.