By Steve Goreham
Originally published in MasterResource.
The artificial intelligence revolution is leaving green electricity states behind. Network operators are choosing states with policies favorable for gas-fired power to support construction of new data centers. States that block data center construction or try to force firms to use wind and solar electricity will lose the economic benefits of the AI boom.
We are in the midst of an AI revolution on a scale that may exceed the internet revolution of twenty years ago. BNP Paribus estimates that AI will boost the US economy by more than 10% by 2034. Goldman Sachs forecasts that AI could raise the global GDP by 7% over the next decade, or about $7 trillion.
More than one thousand data centers are under construction all over the nation, filled with servers to run AI. More than 4,000 data centers are now operating, up 50% since June 2024. Data center construction spending now exceeds that for office building construction.
Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Meta, and Oracle, the five largest AI “hyperscalers,” will spend over $800 billion this year and over $1 trillion in 2027 on AI capital equipment and data centers. Total 2027 spending is projected to exceed US spending for national defense.
Data center installation can bring tremendous benefits to local communities. The $20 billion, 1.8 gigawatt, 795-acre, Joliet Technology Center was just approved in Joliet, Illinois. The project is a medium-sized center but will be the largest in Illinois to date, expected to provide 10,000 construction jobs and $2.1 billion in tax revenue over a 30-year period.
But Illinois wants to force data centers to source power from wind and solar generators. In 2021 the state passed the Climate & Equitable Jobs Act, which requires coal and gas power plants to close between 2030 and 2045. As a result, Hull Street Energy is shutting down two-thirds of its Elwood Energy gas-fired plant years before a 2030 deadline, putting it on flatbed trucks, and transporting it to Texas. The six gas turbines being moved can together generate up to 900 megawatts of power. The loss of most of the Elwood Energy plant and the demands of the new Joliet Technology Center mean a three-gigawatt reduction in the available power capacity in northern Illinois.
Operators strive to bring new data centers online in less than three years to meet rising AI demand. Nuclear plants typically need 10 years for startup. Wind and solar facilities cover wide areas of land, require two to three times as much transmission, and years for transmission approval and construction. Since on-site gas plants can be built quickly, gas has become the dominant power source for new data centers.
But because of the data center boom, gas turbines are now in short supply. Turbine orders doubled from 2024 to 2025, and prices increased by 50%. The lead time for turbines from the world’s top three suppliers, GE, Siemens, and Mitsubishi, has stretched out to five years. Elwood Energy took advantage of this shortage by moving turbines to Texas.
Gas power plant construction for data centers is exploding in Texas. According to the Global Energy Monitor, Texas has 11 gas power plants under construction, another 102 in preconstruction—acquiring land, permits, and contracts—and another 28 projects announced. The pipeline of gas power projects in Texas grew to 58 GW in 2025, more than the peak power demand in California. Texas is building more gas-fired power than the next seven states combined, most of these to power data centers.
But like Illinois, many renewable energy states continue to try to force data centers to use wind and solar sources. Currently, 24 states have net zero electricity targets by 2050.
Data from USA Data Centers for the last two years shows that, with some exceptions, states without net zero electricity mandates are building data centers at a much faster pace than states with mandates. Since June of 2024, construction in states without mandates has exploded. Examples are Georgia (130 new data centers, up 157% from the number of existing centers), Indiana (84 new centers, up 221%), Iowa (73 new centers, up 252%), Missouri (33 new centers, up 85%), Pennsylvania (59 new centers, up 88%), and Texas (206 new centers, up 81%).
Most states with net zero mandates are building data centers at a much slower pace over the last two years. Examples are California (20 new centers, up 8%), Colorado (1 new center, up 2%), New York (6 new centers, up 5%), and Massachusetts (zero new data centers). Electricity prices in California, Massachusetts, and New York are amongst the highest in the nation, an additional reason why operators prefer other states for center sites.
Two exception states with net zero power mandates are Illinois (63 new centers, up 43%), and Virginia (136 new centers, up 29%). Electricity prices in Illinois are just over the national average and Virginia prices are below the average, helping to attract developers.
In addition to energy mandates, several states are considering bans on data center construction. Ten states have introduced legislation for a moratorium on data center construction, including Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Passage of these bills failed in New Hampshire and Wisconsin, and Maine governor Janet Mills recently vetoed a moratorium bill. No state has yet enacted such a ban.
Georgia, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and South Dakota, states that do not have green electricity mandates, are also considering legislation to halt data center construction. Legislation requiring hyperscalers to build their own onsite power plants and to minimize water usage can be sensible policy. But outright bans will leave states behind.
Last month, Senator Bernie Sanders introduced the “Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act” in the Senate, intending to halt construction of data centers. Representative Ocasio-Cortez plans to introduce a companion bill in the House of Representatives. But these bills are unlikely to pass and, even if passed, are likely to be vetoed by President Trump.
If some states ban construction, hyperscalers will shift to states that will accept data centers and onsite gas power plants. Like Elwood Energy in Illinois, look for companies to close gas plants in green energy states and relocate them to other states with favorable policies. States should rescind their green electricity mandates or expect to be left out of the artificial intelligence revolution.
Steve Goreham is a speaker on artificial intelligence, energy, the environment, and public policy, and author of four books, including Green Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure.
Net-zero targets have always been nothing more than politicians demanding scientists and engineers come up new technology on a schedule the politicians made up out of thin air. In short, just another bad government policy.
Bad? Try insane.
Worse. These impossible “demands” don’t even have any actual need or purpose, because the supposed “need” is based on junk science.
‘They’ did the same with ‘best management practices’, as associated with erosion & surface water protection. The rules were implemented prior to knowing what they wanted to do (simply do something for the sake of doing something). The concept was that we would track things and apply the best solutions as technology, practice and knowledge expanded.
After a while they had around a hundred ‘BMPs’ (best management practices); then they had a checklist; then they had/have the form with the checklist and the area next to to the boxes to explain why you are not utilizing each of the 100 or so BMP’s. But most of the time they don’t care … you just write not applicable.
Doing something, for the sake of doing something, turns into regulation for the sake of regulation, which turns into entrenched groups of jobs/saviors that simply do not want to go away (or acknowledge any cost/benefit ratio)
(or even understand that they are directly responsible for a cost/benefit ratio that looks like plutonium-236 half life.)
Will be interesting to follow this. Robert Bryce has put together a data center rejection database given the fierce pushback that is mounting – similar to his wind and solar rejection data bases. Here are a couple of his substack posts.
https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/rage-against-the-data-center
https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/top-10-reasons-why-communities-are
And, there are claims of foreign investment helping spur the protests.
https://blackmon.substack.com/p/more-foreign-funding-for-data-center
“The Data Center Rejection Database is a tracking project created by author and energy analyst Robert Bryce. It monitors the growing local backlash against massive AI and Big Tech computer warehouse developments across the United States”
I thought the database might have been some other thing akin to a blacklist. I’m happy to see it’s just (supposed to be?) a tool to fill in for media ‘reporters’ relearning their vocation after a few decades off.
Net Zero aspirations will fade away to nothing- burger status as the nominated time lines approach.
Just like the Year 2000 computer systems meltdown hype turned out to be a fizzer, and as the “Climate Crisis” Crap is receiving “meh” responses in importance surveys all around the world.
The US stock market is very big – so the 2000 ‘tech boom’ that coincided with the transition from company-managed defined-benefit to self-managed defined-contribution retirement plans AND coincided with the transition from brokers pitching stocks on land lines to individuals scheming to outsmart Wall Street on their desktop computers overshadows the Y2K issue for people who were into investing at that time. A lot of very wealthy people who thrived during that bubble have been trying to recreate it but the worker bees that funded them are too wise to reenact their own fleecing.
Net Zero bypassed stock market speculation and went for public funding. Except for people with ten years experience designing windmills and solar panels, this bust should be much gentler. Most of the affected people will not be in America this time.
From the above article:
“Data center installation can bring tremendous benefits to local communities. The $20 billion, 1.8 gigawatt, 795-acre, Joliet Technology Center was just approved in Joliet, Illinois. . . . But Illinois wants to force data centers to source power from wind and solar generators.”
Two things here:
1) If that data center is to send out data as electrons-over-copper-wires, it is very likely to generate about 90% of 1.8 gigawatts as local waste heat. Where is that amount of power going to be “disposed”? If its data output goes out as photons-over-fiber-optic-cables, the waste heat will be more like 98+% of that 1.8 gigawatts. YIKES! It looks like the JTC is going to need to be located immediately alongside the Des Plaines River to provide cooling water.
2) 1.8 gigawatts from wind and solar generators? NOT A CHANCE.
” send out data as electrons-over-copper-wires“
It is time to upgrade your electrical phenomena jargon.
I think he was trying to communicate with a broader audience by replacing industry- specific jargon with more familiar words. The replacement phrase matches the understanding of an office worker who started in 1990. Should work fine here. Last mile fiber was a hopeful dream in 1990. MCI Worldcom?
Just so. Many people just don’t understand the fundamental processes involved in data transmission. Statements such as “data is megabits per second” don’t help in this regard.
States should rescind their green electricity mandates or expect to be left out
of the artificial intelligence revolution.Fixed it.
Somehow, I don’t believe that the Silicon Valley will leave California. Yes, they should, but ..
… that weather!
Having lived in all 4 corners of USA I feel qualified to say there’s a reason California is expensive. New York is the location that baffles me. Maybe they’re scared that if they demonstrate Wall Street can be moved to Atlanta then they’ve also demonstrated it can be moved to …
The Texas Stock Exchange (TXSE) will be fully operational the first part of 2027. It will be interesting to see how many brokerage houses move out of NYC.
If Texas wins that one, New York might be “all done”. What would Lady Liberty look like on the cover of Time Magazine?
Maybe we can encourage the San Andreas Fault? 😉
“Climate & Equitable Jobs Act”
Glad they were laser focused rather than gathering together a collection of feel good words.
Translation: The Boondoggles and Make-Work Waste of Taxpayer Money Act.”
All Democrat legislation needs to be translated into honest titles.
Rupa Sarkar. Why AI can’t be trusted to write scientific reviews. The production of the highest-quality literature reviews requires the judgement and expertise of people.
For whatever it’s worth. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-01616-3
AI is… what you tell it.
It will still be a revolution for the economy. But in the case of agenda science it will require extra heavy filtering to make any use of it in that corner of society, if at all. It’s more likely we need an intellectual dumping ground for worthless ideas like ghost, zombies, witches, and climate scare conmen. That should not be so difficult as the rewards pile up in the real economy.
I love the smell of napalm reality in the morning.
Bernie still has a use as a billboard for how not to think and where not to go with policy. The date and the vote should be enshrined when his bill on the Clean New Deal was brought before the Senate and got exactly zero votes.
And, as with the internet, the majority of “AI” will be used to create porn.
This assumes that all the data centres and AI expansion are necessary and that the benefits will exceed the costs. I am not (yet) convinced, as this buildout and hype remind me of the dotcom bubble.
Per the graphic, and the executive orders for net zero in Nebraska & Louisiana … Why?
Anybody from Nebraska or Louisiana here that can explain? Or is that graphic misleading?
The Louisiana EO was in 2020 when a Democrat held the office of governor. Times have changed. Per Grok: “The claim you read is accurate for 2020 under Governor Edwards — it was a deliberate policy to align with global climate goals. But under the current governor, the emphasis has shifted significantly toward energy production and economic growth, even as the formal net-zero target has not been fully repealed. Implementation of the more aggressive aspects of the plan has been limited.”
it seems that in LA EOs are not formally rescinded, they are simply ignored if they interfere with the plans of future governors.