Data centers are not inevitable | CATHERINE DORROUGH
An opinion piece advocates for the Alabama Legislature to implement a more robust regulatory framework for data centers, addressing issues like subsidies, water and electricity usage, and local community control. The author highlights the current lack of power for local governments to approve or deny data center projects. It advocates for reforms to empower communities to make case-by-case decisions, using Google's Jackson County data center as an example of a potentially symbiotic relationship.
Catherine Dorrough, a writer and graphic designer from Fairhope, Alabama, argues in an opinion piece published by the Montgomery Advertiser that data centers are not an inevitable development for communities and that local opposition to them is widespread due to concerns over noise, constant light, and significant electricity and water consumption.
Dorrough criticizes Alabama's limited home rule model, which she states restricts local governments from regulating data center issues without explicit state approval. She calls upon the Alabama Legislature to act on several fronts: eliminating or reforming sales and property tax incentives for data centers due to minimal job creation, and establishing a more robust state-level regulatory framework for water usage, noise, and siting. She notes that Alabama's Public Service Commission currently only has authority over energy costs, not water usage or other community impacts, in contrast to states like Texas which are implementing more comprehensive audits.
Finally, Dorrough emphasizes the need to empower local communities to decide whether to host data centers. She points to Google's data center in Jackson County, Alabama, as an example where a mutually beneficial agreement, including significant community investments, was achieved, suggesting that counties should be able to evaluate construction proposals on a case-by-case basis. She concludes that while the AI industry is rapidly advancing, communities retain control over the physical infrastructure, asserting that these buildings are a product of choice that should rest with the people affected.