Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government United States

Maine Governor Vetoes Data Center Moratorium Bill 96

Maine Gov. Janet Mills vetoed a bill that would have imposed the nation's first statewide moratorium on new data centers, saying she supported the idea in principle but would not block a major redevelopment project tied to jobs and local investment. Instead, she said she will create a council to study data centers' effects while also signing a separate measure to deny them certain state tax incentives. Politico reports: "After prior redevelopment efforts failed, the Town of Jay worked for two years on a $550 million data center redevelopment project to finally bring jobs and investment back to the mill site," Mills wrote, adding that she would issue an executive order establishing a council to examine the impact of data centers in Maine.

The legislation would have made Maine the first state to block the construction of new data centers, as both political parties grapple with how voters view them ahead of the midterm elections. In a statement accompanying the letter, the governor said she had signed a separate bill that would prohibit data center projects from receiving Maine's business development tax incentive programs

Maine Governor Vetoes Data Center Moratorium Bill

Comments Filter:
  • by ndsurvivor ( 891239 ) on Friday April 24, 2026 @11:08PM (#66111170) Journal
    There are water, electricity, and infrastructure considerations. If it makes sense, do it, if not, do not do it. I don't think the article lays out the facts enough for us normals to decide.
    • by gtall ( 79522 )

      You left out environmental concerns, including costs to flora and fauna, not just people. How is are those data centers to be powered? If it mean pumping lots of CO2 into the atmosphere, then that cost must be brought in. Insurance companies have actuaries that can put a price on your grandma, we have scientists to can predict the effects. Put them together and come out with a cost. Then charge taxpayers that cost and see how welcome are the data centers.

    • There are water, electricity, and infrastructure considerations. If it makes sense, do it, if not, do not do it. I don't think the article lays out the facts enough for us normals to decide.

      Where exactly in the country does it make sense to do it?

      The governor vetoed it because "jobs and investment". But it smells more like corruption. Watch and see how those denials for certain state tax incentives, quietly disappear in a back room briefcase somewhere.

      If it doesn't make sense, watch and see how it will make enough sense for those profiting off it. No one else's' opinion really matters.

  • But any large project should be required to have sufficient infrastructure, and if it doesn't, the builder of the project needs to build the infrastructure. End stop.
    • by kenh ( 9056 ) on Friday April 24, 2026 @11:24PM (#66111182) Homepage Journal

      Will that rule apply to commercial (non-datacenter) and residential projects? Must home development builders build their own sanitation and electricity generation facilities, or is it just data centers?

      • by Archfeld ( 6757 ) <treboreel@live.com> on Saturday April 25, 2026 @01:08AM (#66111262) Journal

        It already does. Residential building projects require a power/water/sewage infrstructure plan that ensures there is enough utility for the number of projected buildings/residents. Heck in my state they do a green space study and often make developers install a wash area for runoff.

        • by kenh ( 9056 )

          Local utilities expand to serve expanding residential developments, the home builder doesn't need to build their own power plant or water treatment plant...

          • If somebody wants to take a city's worth of power, then typically the user of that power is going to have to make sure there is sufficient power before building, or they will have to pay for or build the power source themselves.
        • Are out of control.

          Back when the baby boomers were coming up the government made sure that was all taken care of and paid for it all with taxpayer dollars.

          If you're a developer now and you want to build you generally have to take care of that yourself because we stopped spending money on infrastructure and that was all part of infrastructure spending.

          So developers stopped building anything affordable and focused on pricey luxury homes that they may not be able to sell but they don't care because
          • "paid for it all with taxpayer dollars"

            The tax increment from new residents doesn't accrue until after they move in. However, the infrastructure capacity increment is needed immediately.

            So the municipality needs a) planning information so they know how much incremental infrastructure will be needed, and b) financing that is based on payments in the future.

      • Well, yes? Would it make any sense to build a housing plan knowing the substation is already at capacity?

        • by kenh ( 9056 )

          The point I was making was that when a builder goes into an area to build say 200 homes, the builder doesn't have to install an infrastructure to supply electricity or water/sewage, the utility adds the capacity and the municipal water department increases capacity. When someone wants to build a data center the OP said they need to supply their own electricity or water if sufficient supply doesn't already exist.

          • The point I was making was that when a builder goes into an area to build say 200 homes, the builder doesn't have to install an infrastructure to supply electricity or water/sewage, the utility adds the capacity and the municipal water department increases capacity.

            Absolutely not.

            When developers put in a new housing development, they absolutely DO have to negotiate with the community to get electricity supply extended, water lines laid, and sewerage. It is completely wrong to think that they just build the houses, and somehow the electric company, waterworks, and wastewater just pops up and builds service to them. Until they have these arrangements made, they don't get the permit to build.

            • It is completely wrong to think that they just build the houses, and somehow the electric company, waterworks, and wastewater just pops up and builds service to them
              That is how it works in the rest of the world.

              Until they have these arrangements made, they don't get the permit to build.
              In the rest of the world that is reversed. You get your building permit, based on your property and construction plans: the utilities are obliged to provide the infrastructure. Because that is their damn job, and the law.

              No i

        • Well, yes? Would it make any sense to build a housing plan knowing the substation is already at capacity?

          That is part of what happened in my locale. They installed solar panel fields at the end substations to service growing developments. More cost effective by far, since the alternative was running new high tension lines, declare some eminent domain, and take many years to fight the court battles and install all of that infrastructure.

          This method, they buy a few fields, install the panels and connect them to the grid at the substation. It also helps the substation to last longer. End of line substations are

      • Uh. Yes. If of sufficient size. I do believe that's what I wrote, but I can double check.
      • But, the data center can just use existing infrastructure instead of spending all the time and money in finding an untapped water reservoir and installing a whole treatment plant for the well water and a whole new sewer system (instead of adding on to existing sewer lines like they do when building a new house on a new city block).
        It's cheaper to use existing than build new, always.

      • Such a silly thread. You don't sell many homes without 'infrastructure'. And no data center is built without 'infrastructure'.

        You've forgotten it's just about how it's paid for.

  • This project had been approved already and was known to the residents. I agree a moratorium is wise but this one was already planned in an area that has the generation capacity and will bring some needed jobs. It should have been carved out.
    • by ndsurvivor ( 891239 ) on Friday April 24, 2026 @11:27PM (#66111186) Journal
      I don't see this as a "jobs program" at all. Data Centers don't seem to bring jobs. That seems like Billionaire propaganda to me. It just puts money into the pockets of Rich people. It does drive up average electricity rates, and uses a bunch of needed water. Offset that, and I'm OK with with the rich eating their cake.
      • by SirSlud ( 67381 )

        "Data Centers don't seem to bring jobs."

        Seems is not a great word in an argument one wishes to make.

        • by ndsurvivor ( 891239 ) on Friday April 24, 2026 @11:57PM (#66111212) Journal
          Lay it out to me how data centers bring jobs. They build a huge building, They buy chips. I give you that. After that, they suck up water and electricity, and maybe employ 130 people. These are not the classic "Manufacturing Jobs" from the 1950's, when I guess America was "Great", as the MAGAs think.
          • by larryjoe ( 135075 ) on Saturday April 25, 2026 @12:09AM (#66111226)

            Lay it out to me how data centers bring jobs. They build a huge building, They buy chips. I give you that. After that, they suck up water and electricity, and maybe employ 130 people. These are not the classic "Manufacturing Jobs" from the 1950's, when I guess America was "Great", as the MAGAs think.

            This is the real problem. Data center use electricity and water, create minimal jobs for the area and resources used, and generate a small amount of taxes. The property taxes for commercial (especially in California) are minimal, there are no sales taxes, and income-related taxes are also low due to the relatively low number of workers.

            You'd think that the extreme electricity and water usage would incur a correspondingly extreme cost, but in a mind-baffling way, the extreme resource usage costs far less per unit than households pay. Instead, households bear the brunt of the required electricity and water resource infrastructure and procurement.

            The way to even out the pros and cons is to mandate a economic return to the area. Impose a tax based on the output of the data center. Call it either a sales tax or a value added tax. Of course, this would scare off the data centers, which is just fine because there is no lost economic value to the residents of that area.

          • by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Saturday April 25, 2026 @01:41AM (#66111272)

            130 people? More like 13 people. All the workers do is change out hardware when it fails.

            • Probably not even 13. When hardware failed at our co-los around the country, we had people drive in from wherever to replace it. They weren't on-site. As far as I know, only the security guys were on-site.
            • Half correct, but very simplistic.

              After all, you also need guards, in 3 shifts.

              Perhaps a resting area, and a cafeteria.

              Cleaning stuff, and so on.

              It adds up quickly.

              I guess something between 50 - 60 might be more logical.

          • by Sloppy ( 14984 )

            I'm not really a pro-jobs guy (IMHO 100% unemployment is a fantastic goal), but I'll take a shot at this one.

            Lay it out to me how data centers bring jobs.

            Widget manufacturer wants to be able to take online orders, so they host an e-commerce site at a data center. Now they can take orders. They hire people to help make more widgets faster, in order to keep up with customer demand.

            A data center is well-connected, so a VPS there makes for a good, fast seedbox. People can use it to torrent all their TV and movi

        • If you had ever been in one you'd know.

      • It is located at a failed paper plant with a lot of potential generation and people looking for decent employment. Sad that it failed.
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          I think you have your concern backward and need to read TFA. She vetoed the moratorium that would have prevented the project outright. Instead she said the project needs further review before a decision is reached.

          • by SeaFox ( 739806 )

            Instead she said the project needs further review before a decision is reached.

            That's just a way of opening the door for the developers to bribe the select people who get to decide instead of the citizens.

  • Instead, she said she will create a council to study data centers' effects while also signing a separate measure to deny them certain state tax incentives.

    I predict this 'council' will be researching this until after the Fall election, then quickly reach a conclusion...

    Also, Gov, you don't need to deny tax benefits, just don't offer them!

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Perhaps she doesn't need to "offer" them. Perhaps there is an automatic process that offers tax incentives for any new industrial construction over $100 million?

      Assigning political motivations based on a poorly written summary? Your cynicism is showing.

  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Friday April 24, 2026 @11:35PM (#66111192)
    America is a All or nothing country. We don't do nuance. We are either going to give all the water and electricity to AI data centers or were not going to build AI data centers. That is just how we roll.

    So the only path forward is to either give up on having consistent water and electricity or ban data centers.

    A better educated population with higher critical thinking skills could find a middle ground.

    A better educated population with higher critical thinking skills wouldn't have half the population thinking the Earth was 6,000 years old and wouldn't be withholding school lunch from children because they think it builds character or some shit...

    We need to do the bans because America refuses to do nuance. Fix that and you can have middle grounds but you're going to have to give up a whole bunch of other sacred cows but you refuse to point critical thinking at.
    • by ndsurvivor ( 891239 ) on Friday April 24, 2026 @11:39PM (#66111198) Journal
      Seems like if we can spend a billion dollars a day on bombs, we can buy kids breakfast and lunch at school. Off topic, sorry.
      • by SirSlud ( 67381 )

        Or just schools, period.

        • by kenh ( 9056 )

          Really? We don't have schools in the US? Or are you arguing that they are underfunded? Having worked in public school education, I think the money is there, but it is spent poorly, wasted on things that don't help students as much as it helps teachers and their healthcare/pension benefits. Question: Have you ever seen a teachers union go on strike for longer school days, longer school years, higher academic standards, or additional money for after school activities? Me neither - but then again, they are cal

          • And what you're doing is a gish gallop. You throw out a bunch of nonsense and there's too much to debunk.

            So I'm just going to point out that you want to keep kids starving but you don't want to admit it in public. So you hide behind the excuse that it's those evil administrators in their blue hair or something.

            You are withholding food from children and if you happen to be Christian you will burn in hell for that.
          • by SirSlud ( 67381 )

            "Having worked in public school education"

            Lol. Means shit all for caring about better education.

            "as it helps teachers and their healthcare/pension benefits"

            Yes, you dipshit, it must be crazy of me to think that paying teachers well leads to better teachers.

            Why would teachers want longer school days? School day lengths are fine. Longer school years? Is school a job? The length of the school year is for kids. There's a reason why schools have breaks, its for students. Additional money for after school activit

      • by kenh ( 9056 )

        Seems like if we can spend a billion dollars a day on bombs, we can buy kids breakfast and lunch at school. Off topic, sorry.

        Are you really unaware of the federal school lunch program that feeds countless millions of low-income students a hot breakfast and lunch daily, along with take-home meals in some locals? Did you not see cars lined up outside public schools collecting their free meals during COVID? Are you unaware of SNAP, WIC, and other programs to help lower income family afford healthy food?

        • The low-income lunch is a reheated cheeseburger, some half-ass fries (when I was in high school and was getting the LIL), and a milk carton.
          I'm sure the breakfast is a couple identically-shaped pancakes, and a couple sausages or floppy bacon, and a milk carton (never got dropped off at school that early).
          Was there a reason the parents (who drove the kids to the school) couldn't have just made something at home for the kids (during the Big Bad Covid)?

        • You do know our current government wants to end those programs right?

      • The people who oppose free school lunch want those kids to starve.

        Part of it is they want their parents to suffer too. And part of it is they like to tell themselves those kids being hungry all day build character.

        The real reason is that their own personal lives are terrible and they desperately need somebody to be worse off so that they can compare themselves to that person. They don't judge the quality of their lives objectively they judge their lives relatively.

        I saw this with people who woul
    • Nuance isn't going to get rid of the DCs, or force them to employ more people, or not replace a whole department full of workers with just one computer, or to use half the water they needed originally.
      It's an all-or-nothing discussion... either the DC gets built and uses all the power it can get (even to the displeasure of the population... because "Clod"!) and empties all the water towers in town every time they change the water out... or, they don't build it and it takes you a few more seconds to get a re

  • I am currently on vacation in Maryland. A place only slightly less blue than my home in Massachusetts.

    You know what I see here that I never see there? Road networks built out to handle actual traffic. Public transportation built out to handle commuter volumes. Parking lots at train stations. Housing developments being built to handle a growing population. Land set aside to handle municipal services (schools, sanitation, libraries, etc) for future growth.

    I once ventured out into deep purple North Carolina wh

  • Already bought and paid for.
  • Failing a ban, pass a law that these projects must pass environmental (incl. pollution), economic, and community impact reviews. Proper red tape to selectively prevent vulture projects from sucking up water and power while creating noise and combustion pollution.
  • If the veto isn't overridden by the legislature, then the citizens could start a petition for a referendum if they can raise the enough money to gather the signatures.

  • Imagine we used AI to figure out how to make it take up less space, use less energy, and not be so damn loud.
    But that's a problem for another day just build the warehouses and let the cards fall where they may. AI will make us redundant anyway.

  • I'm waiting to see if my theory is correct. Last year there was a local referendum for allowing a data center in a rural area of Chesapeake, VA. Some of my friends who live nearby voted against it because they like living around farmland and trees. I do too, but I don't believe that will be the case long. I suspect that this country corner is going to be developed no matter what, and not putting a data center there will instead allow zoning to put something even more obnoxious there.

    • What's more obnoxious than an AI data center? A bomb test range?

      • The main roads to this area are already insufficient, so traffic is a problem. The data center was only going to have a staff of 30. It could be an Amazon warehouse or meat processing plant or something where hundreds of additional vehicles swarm the roads. I don't have a clear idea yet of what the alternate bad development will be.

        • The alternate developments will be buying up all the fields to bring you all the solar power you need (with a few wind turbines tossed in for good measure) because it's what you want! Nobody needs those fields for growing anything or that forest of trees where animals live... we can just plow it all and make it green power!

  • "supported the idea in principle but would not block a major redevelopment project tied to jobs and local investment" translation: "I agree with the idea, unless they pay us enough money to ignore the problems, just like every other giant business investment."

Everybody needs a little love sometime; stop hacking and fall in love!

Working...