• From Indiana to Idaho, a Backlash Against A.I. Gathers Momentum
(Tripp Mickle, NY Times, 4-27-26)
When Michael Grayston, an evangelical pastor in Austin, Texas, heard that a friend’s relationship with an artificial intelligence companion had nearly destroyed a marriage, he saw a moral danger that needed to be addressed.
When Jack Gardner, a Boise, Idaho musician, discovered A.I. had made songs with copyrighted music, he and his wife, Cathryn, an elementary school band teacher, started a local group to call for A.I. legislation.
When Bart and Amy Snyder, farmers in Wolcott, Ind., learned that a data center was going to be built 300 yards from their home, they worried it would drain local aquifers and started a campaign to unseat three county officials who had supported it.
Though none of them had been politically active before, they became part of a growing national movement that pits the tech industry and its billionaires against a diverse coalition of parent groups, religious leaders, environmentalists and former Tea Party activists.
They all worry that tech companies are more focused on cashing in on A.I. than how it may affect regular people. They also share a sense that all that money will flow into the hands of Silicon Valley’s ultrawealthy, while the middle and working classes shoulder the costs.
They believe that people in Washington, especially President Trump, are protecting Silicon Valley rather than reeling it in. They want regulation — or at least a debate before A.I. becomes entrenched in American life.
• Doing data centers the not-dumb way
(David Roberts, Volts, 4-15-26)
Listen or read the transcript.
Why its stupid for tech companies to build their own behind-the-meter natural gas plants, how this approach is wrecking equipment and destabilizing the grid, and a better, smarter, faster path forward.
(Tyler Norris et al, Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment & Sustainability, Feb. 2025.) An important paper.
A key solution to the United States' soaring electrical demand—driven by unprecedented electricity needs from data centers and their booming artificial intelligence workloads, alongside other consumers—is load flexibility. Flexibility allows large electricity users to temporarily reduce consumption during periods of grid stress by shifting workloads, utilizing on-site generation, or adjusting operations.
By leveraging flexibility, new large loads can be interconnected more quickly while reducing the need for premature investment in additional power plants and transmission lines—offering a hedge against uncertainty in future electricity demand in light of the release of DeepSeek.
This national-scale analysis provides a first-order estimate of how much new flexible load could be added across the 22 largest US balancing authorities, which collectively serve 95% of the grid. The study introduces a new concept—curtailment-enabled headroom—to describe how much additional load the grid can absorb using existing capacity, with only modest, short-duration reductions in usage. The findings highlight a significant opportunity: Nearly 100 GW of large new loads could be integrated with minimal impact, supporting economic growth while maintaining grid reliability and affordability.
• Data centers and your power bill
(Claire Brown, Climate Forward, NY Times, 2-19-26)
Tech companies are investing billions of dollars to build energy-hungry data centers at a time when demand for electricity in the United States is already increasing. It has politicians thinking about rising utility bills, not least because voters tend to punish their elected representatives when bills spike. The White House proposed that tech companies help pay for new power plants added to the grid on their behalf.
Proposed solutions:
Make data centers build their own power plants.
Ban data center construction.
• What Happens If Trump Seizes AI Companies
(Matteo Wong and Lila Shroff, The Atlantic, 4-27-26)
The administration could exert much greater control over the industry—but just how far would it go? What if nationalization actually happens?
Full nationalization, an absolute takeover of the industry, would hollow out the commercial businesses of its three leading players: OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google DeepMind.
Such a situation is, in all likelihood, not going to happen. For starters, it’s probably illegal. The Constitution generally prevents the government from seizing private property without paying, and the government is unlikely to easily produce the trillions of dollars that the industry is collectively worth.
The top American AI labs might immediately lose a fair portion of their research staff as well, because of restrictions on foreigners who can work on the most crucial defense-related technologies.
But consider another possibility—slightly less extreme, though still capable of remaking the industry as we know it. The government could regulate AI companies like it does utilities. Some corners of Silicon Valley itself seem to be at least partially open to it. Altman has described a future in which “intelligence is a utility like electricity or water and people buy it from us on a meter.” For years, AI companies have insisted they need to be regulated—but only as they see fit.
Should the federal government ever take AI regulation seriously, the utility route would be among the most aggressive approaches available. But, really, the AI industry would be getting what it asked for.
• Maine Governor Vetoes Bill That Would Have Paused New Data Centers
(Jenna Russell, NY Times, 4-24-26)
Gov. Janet Mills said she rejected what would have been the nation’s first moratorium on data centers because it failed to exempt a project in a distressed mill town.