On Nov. 3, Data Centers Face 41 Ballot Questions

COLUMBUS, Ohio, Oct. 26 — OnOn Nov. 3, voters in 18 Ohio communities will decide 21 local measures on data centers, more than in any other state. By this paper’s tally, 11 would prohibit data centers, outright or above a certain size. Four concern rezonings in Wilmington tied to one proposed project, and a fifth concerns Ashville’s term summary for negotiations with a developer. Monroeville’s would advise officials to allow data centers.

Across the country, Ballotpedia counts at least 49 data-center measures in 13 states this year, 41 of them on Nov. 3, up from 38 and 34 in its Sept. 21 count.The CountBallotpedia, which tracks ballot measures, counted them in eight states on Sept. 21; it now adds Arkansas, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey and North Dakota. Part of the rise is votes already held: its list now includes two in New Hampshire, on March 10 and Sept. 8. All six results in its table favored limits.

Illinois has seven measures, four of them advisory votes in townships of Madison County on permitting new data centers. Maine has four; Kansas and Wisconsin have three each.

The Questions

In Conneaut, Defiance, Oregon, Sunbury and Trenton, the question is whether to bar data centers drawing more than 25 megawatts.25 MegawattsDuke Energy Florida’s proposed tariff treats a customer of 50 megawatts or more at one site as a large load. Of the 13 customers above that size that asked Duke for system-impact studies, the smallest was 160 megawatts, Florida regulators’ staff wrote. Grove City’s Issue 28 would require a public vote on any development, expansion or property transfer involving 50 or more contiguous acres, more than 20 megawatts of peak demand or more than 500,000 gallons of water a day.

In Ashville, a village in Pickaway County, the council’s term summary with EdgeConneX covers two data-center buildings on about 195 acres and a natural-gas plant to power them. Wilmington’s four rezonings cover about 546 acres, all tied to what Ballotpedia calls the Ardent/TAC data-center project.

In two Ohio towns, officials tried to keep a measure off the ballot, and the state’s Supreme Court ruled for the petitioners both times. On Aug. 7 it told Ashville’s fiscal officer to certify the petition, ruling that the council’s wish that the project not be “unnecessarily delayed” did not justify passing its resolution as an emergency, which would have shielded it from referendum. On Sept. 1 it ruled 7-0 for petitioners in Trenton, whose council had rejected their petition.Off the BallotElsewhere, courts have kept such votes away. Maryland’s Supreme Court ruled on June 30 that a referendum on a Frederick County ordinance rezoning 838 acres for data centers could not appear on the ballot; a Missouri judge ruled on March 25 that an Independence ordinance granting tax incentives for a data center was not subject to referendum.

In this paper’s reading, these cases show that a council’s vote need not settle a project’s local siting risk. In August, for example, voters in Augusta Township, Mich., rejected a rezoning for a proposed data center, 2,314 votes to 269.

Amazon’s case shows that owning the land need not settle a disputed use, ballot or no ballot. It paid about $427.3 million this year for George Washington University’s 122-acre campus in Ashburn, Va., planning more than 800,000 square feet of data centers. On Oct. 20, after county officials objected, it agreed with Loudoun County to drop them and seek a rezoning, mostly for housing, under which data centers would not be permitted “even by special exception,” Virginia Business reported. Josh Weissman, an Amazon vice president, said in a statement that Amazon saw the site’s “legal development potential differently than the county does” but chose a shared vision “rather than engage in costly litigation.”

On the morning of Nov. 3, Florida’s Public Service Commission decides Duke Energy Florida’s tariff for very large customers, the first test of a state law meant to keep the cost of serving them off other ratepayers; its staff recommends denying it as filed, with leave to refile.The LawFlorida’s law, SB 484, took effect on July 1. It holds that when a class of customer requires “uniquely large electrical loads at a single location,” it imposes “a disproportionate risk” on other ratepayers. By Oct. 20 the commission had received more than 4,400 consumer comments in Duke’s case. Duke argues that its tariffs include “coordinated cost responsibility and risk mitigation mechanisms to satisfy the statute’s objectives.” Staff says Duke’s commitment that shareholders will absorb any unrecovered costs until its rate settlement ends in 2027 protects other ratepayers, but that “shareholder absorption of a shortfall does not itself demonstrate that the large load customer pays its full cost.” It also offers commissioners an alternative: approve Duke’s cost-recovery framework, while widening whom the tariff covers, if they find its rates and protections meet the law. In Edgewater, Fla., voters decide that day whether to prohibit new data centers.

Who Gains

In this paper’s reading, projects already running with power secured could gain an edge over sites still exposed to a referendum. By analogy, one possible consequence is relocation, a response the industry has described to a shortage of power. “Constraints in Loudoun County have contributed to a shift in data center development to other parts of Virginia and to fast-growing markets like Georgia,” Aaron Tinjum of the Data Center Coalition said, as quoted by CNN on Sunday. Being built is no guarantee of power: some approved and built data centers in the Loudoun area face waits of a year or more to be hooked up to the grid, CNN reported, citing Mr. Tinjum.

Ashville shows that proposing on-site power does not, by itself, avoid a local referendum: its vote covers EdgeConneX’s planned gas plant along with the buildings. In Boulder City, Nev., voters decide whether to allow data centers as a use of city land in the Eldorado Valley; Ballotpedia quotes the Boulder City Forward Alliance, which campaigns for the measure, as saying a project called TS2 “brings its own power.”

In this paper’s reading, developers risk losing an intended use for their land, while towns may forgo prospective lease or tax revenue; whether a town loses financially depends on the costs as well as the receipts. Boulder City’s official digest says data-center lease revenue “could help keep taxes low,” though if voters approve, the council “would only be authorized to potentially enter into leases.” In the arguments of the committees the city appointed, as reproduced by Ballotpedia, supporters say the city “cannot stop data center development on adjacent lands,” and opponents that data centers “would offer few permanent jobs and limited ongoing economic benefit.”

Ohio’s governor wants terms, not bans. “I think it would be bad if we said, well, we don’t want any data centers,” Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, told reporters on Aug. 7, WCMH-TV in Columbus reported; local government, he said, “can be more aggressive.” Austin Baurichter, a lawyer who has represented Ashville residents seeking their referendum, saw it otherwise: “Trust is thin right now between people and their local governments.”

I think it would be bad if we said, well, we don’t want any data centers.

A campaign to amend Ohio’s constitution to bar data centers above 25 megawatts missed this year’s July 1 deadline, but said it felt “confident in making the deadline for the 2027 general election,” Ballotpedia records.

Each result will speak only for the voters of one place. The six results in Ballotpedia’s table drew between 385 votes, in Canterbury, N.H., and 11,760, in Monterey Park, Calif. The largest sum on Ballotpedia’s list comes four weeks after Nov. 3: on Dec. 1, voters in Clarksville, Ark., decide whether to uphold an ordinance authorizing up to $50 billion of taxable industrial development bonds for a data center on about 205 acres at 101 Big Danger Road, to be leased to Hatchbo, LLC.