Policy group argues against data center moratorium, pushes transparency
A policy group, The Buckeye Institute, argues against a data center moratorium in Ohio, advocating instead for increased transparency and for developers to cover all project costs. Conversely, Conserve Ohio supports a ban on large data centers, citing concerns about land use and a move away from renewable energy. The debate centers on how Ohio should regulate the growing data center industry.
The Buckeye Institute, a non-profit policy group, has released a new paper arguing against a moratorium on data center construction in Ohio. Instead, the group suggests a policy requiring data centers to cover all costs imposed on taxpayers, advocating for increased transparency, ensuring developers bear project risks, pay local property taxes, and adhere to fair regulatory processes. Aswin Prabhakar, an economic research analyst for the institute, emphasized that while public concerns are valid, a moratorium is not the solution.
Contrarily, Andrew Guda of Conserve Ohio, a group advocating for a ban on large data centers in the state, expressed strong disagreement. Guda views data center development as a means for large companies to acquire vast tracts of land, pushing the state further from renewable energy goals with reliance on gas turbines and extensive land paving. He highlighted concerns about climate change being sidelined by this development push.
The Buckeye Institute further suggested that data center locations and environmental impacts should be managed through existing regulatory frameworks applicable to other industries. They propose using local zoning rules for noise and land use, and regulating water use, spills, and wastewater based on existing environmental rules. If regulatory gaps exist, the institute argues the state should address them across all industries, not just data centers, and ensure data centers are taxed like other industrial businesses to support local services.