The State Playbook for Equitable Data-Center Growth

AI’s explosive growth is reshaping America’s electric grid. In this AIxEnergy conversation, host Michael Vincent and energy economist Brandon Owens explore how state policies can ensure fairness as data centers drive massive power demand. Owens explains that while tech giants like Amazon and Microsoft insulate themselves through private energy deals, households face rising bills. Using examples from Maryland, Texas, and Georgia, he argues that policy—not technology—determines who pays. States can adopt large-load impact fees, congestion-cost allocation, and flexible-load tariffs to make AI growth equitable, while investing in community benefits and shared infrastructure. The takeaway: smart governance can turn the AI power surge from a social burden into a public good. 

Transcript

Michael: Artificial intelligence is changing everything — from what we read to how our power moves. But behind that bright promise is a quieter tension: the rise of massive data centers and the electricity they devour.

Who pays for that power? And can public policy keep the grid fair while the A-I economy expands at record speed?

I’m Michael Vincent, and this is AIxEnergy.

Today, I’m on the telephone line with Brandon Owens, energy economist, author of The Wind Power Story, and founder of AIxEnergy dot I-O. Together we’ll explore how states can protect households and keep A-I growth equitable.

Brandon, your recent article describes a sharp divide — volatility is pushed onto consumers, while stability is privatized by big technology firms. What drove you to write it?

Brandon: I wanted to ask a simple question that nobody seemed to answer: Who’s actually paying to power the A-I revolution?

Between twenty-twenty and twenty-twenty-five, average household electricity prices climbed about twenty-four percent. What’s behind that?

Inflation and fuel costs played a role, but the game-changer is demand from artificial-intelligence data centers. These campuses are extremely power-dense. In parts of northern Virginia, for example, single counties have added thousands of megawatts of new demand. That strains transmission lines and drives congestion — costs that ripple outward to families who never see a data rack.

Meanwhile, the corporations building those facilities — Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Meta — seem largely insulated from higher prices. How do they manage that?

They’ve built protection systems. They sign long-term power-purchase contracts, buy renewable projects outright, and even construct private micro-grids. Amazon’s recent purchase of a nine-hundred-sixty-megawatt nuclear campus in Pennsylvania is a perfect illustration. These companies can own generation directly. Homeowners can’t.

Michael: So the grid has become divided.

Exactly. Ordinary ratepayers are price-takers. Large technology firms are price-makers.

Michael: You compared Maryland, Texas, and Georgia. What do those examples reveal?

Brandon: Maryland shows what happens when growth outruns governance. Families around Baltimore watched their bills jump nearly eighty percent in three years. The reason? Congestion spreading from Virginia’s data-center corridor. Residents ended up paying for a digital economy they never asked for.

Texas offers contrast. Its market allows regulators to disconnect data centers during emergencies — so when electricity is scarce, big campuses, not households, go offline first. That shifts some risk back to corporations.

Georgia tells a more hopeful story. Completing the two new nuclear units added more than two gigawatts of clean, firm capacity just as A-I demand surged. As a result, household prices rose only about fourteen percent.

Michael: So policy, not technology, decides who wins and who pays.

Precisely. The energy transition is as much about rules as it is about wires.

Michael: If you were advising state officials, where would you start?

Brandon: With pricing fairness. We need what I call large-load impact fees. Think of them like highway tolls — the heaviest vehicles pay more because they wear down the road. Big data centers should help fund the grid reinforcements they require.

Another tool is congestion-cost allocation. When a cluster of high-demand facilities drives up regional prices, regulators can assign those costs to that cluster instead of spreading them to everyone. That motivates companies to build where the grid already has capacity.

Michael: So in short — if you cause the strain, you share the cost.

Brandon: Exactly. It’s fairness by design.

Michael: What can states do to protect ordinary households?

Brandon: They can smooth out volatility. For example, retail-price caps or bill-averaging programs can stop sudden spikes from hitting family budgets.

They can also use big data centers as flexible assets. If companies are paid to move non-urgent computing tasks to off-peak hours, that eases grid stress and rewards cooperation.

Finally, states can set onsite-generation standards. Requiring each new data-center campus to meet a portion of its demand with its own clean power.

Michael: So we move from passive consumption to active participation.

Brandon: Yes. The modern grid thrives on flexibility, not just capacity.

Michael: Beyond individual bills, what larger investments matter?

Brandon: States can require data-center developers to help finance the transmission lines they make necessary. It’s the same principle: if your presence creates the need for new infrastructure, you help pay for it.

They can also create public–private infrastructure funds. These pools mix capital from government, utilities, and technology firms to build renewable generation, long-duration energy storage, and regional transmission corridors.

And finally, community transition payments. Host communities deserve direct investment — training programs, local resilience projects, and new economic opportunities. That turns large campuses from extractive neighbors into civic partners.

Michael: Almost like requiring a social contract for digital infrastructure.

Brandon: Exactly. Growth should come with gratitude.

Michael: What happens if states ignore this?

Brandon: They risk losing public trust. If citizens begin to equate artificial intelligence with higher bills and unequal benefits, political resistance will follow. But if states act now A-I can actually strengthen the grid, integrating renewables and stabilizing demand.

Michael: So the question isn’t whether data centers will grow — they will — but whether that growth deepens division or builds resilience.

Brandon: Exactly. We can either privatize stability or democratize resilience.

Michael: Brandon Owens thank you for joining us.

Brandon: Thank you, Michael. It’s been a pleasure discussing how smart policy can keep the digital future fair for everyone.

Michael: You can read Brandon’s full article, “The State Playbook for Equitable Data-Center Growth,” at AIxEnergy dot I-O.

I’m Michael Vincent. Thanks for listening.