The hypocrisy of the data center moratorium

Arizona and Pennsylvania are separated by nearly 2,000 miles. But lately, our states have found some common ground, with elected officials and activists in both parties calling for moratoria on any new data center development .

The calls are not confined to one political party or ideology. They reflect a strain of populism increasingly evident on both ends of the political spectrum. Some seem motivated by a skepticism of large investments, new technologies and the rapid pace of economic change accompanying them. There are legitimate concerns, to be sure, but we are also in the thick of an election season — rarely the time for a sober assessment of public policy tradeoffs.

Both of our organizations have focused on education by convening stakeholders, public officials, and the public in order to help address these concerns. At times, those efforts have fallen flat or been drowned out by disinformation.

In Pennsylvania, the Chamber of Business and Industry challenged data center opponents to sign a “ No Technology Pledge. ” The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry offered an “ Offline Pledge .” Both invited those who would stop the infrastructure behind our digital economy to also swear off the services that depend on it.

For the record, we haven’t had any takers, and we don’t expect any.

The pledges were obviously facetious. We have no expectation that anyone will give up online banking, telehealth, streaming, GPS, e-commerce, cloud storage or countless other services that depend on data centers.

Although tongue-in-cheek, these challenges make a serious point. If we stop building the infrastructure required by an increasingly digital economy, we won’t stop the demand for that infrastructure. We’ll just push the investments — and the jobs and innovation that come with them — somewhere else.

Another state might be happy to welcome those new jobs. So might another country, including one that does not share America’s interests. At a moment when technological leadership and the innovation it fuels are inseparable from economic and national security, voluntarily surrendering investment in our digital infrastructure would be a profound mistake.

We’re not arguing that data centers should be built everywhere, nor that communities should accept projects without asking hard questions. Residents deserve a voice in projects that affect their communities. Developers should be forthright about water and energy use, noise levels, infrastructure needs, and economic benefits. Some developers’ lack of transparency has bred suspicion; more transparency could go a long way in building understanding and trust.

We don’t dismiss the concerns surrounding artificial intelligence , either. But centering the data center debate on AI misses how deeply this infrastructure is already woven into everyday life. It supports commerce, banking, health care, transportation, travel, communications and nearly every sector of the modern economy.

Some criticisms fail to account for how quickly the industry is changing. New cooling technologies and closed-loop systems significantly reduce water demands. Regulators and utilities are also working to ensure the power demands of data centers aren’t shifted onto other customers .

But acknowledging the concerns should not mean dismissing the available solutions and potential benefits. Data centers can represent enormous private capital investments and generate significant tax revenue that helps communities pay for schools, police, fire protection and other public services.

Good policy requires laws that can keep pace with innovation while protecting the communities where investment occurs. We won’t get there by closing the door on debate, investment and innovation before the conversation has even begun.

Our pledges aren’t serious proposals, but neither are data center moratoria.

Danny Seiden is president and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Luke Bernstein is president and CEO of the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry.