Beyond the Chips: The Local Politics of AI Infrastructure
Even the most ardent cheerleaders for artificial intelligence now quietly concede we are navigating a massive AI bubble. The numbers are stark: hyperscalers are deploying roughly $400 billion annually into data centers and specialized chips while AI-related revenue hovers around $20 billion — a 20-to-1 capital-to-revenue ratio that stands out even in infrastructure cycles historically characterized by front-loaded spending. To justify this deployment on conventional investment metrics, the industry would need a step-change in monetization over a short window to make the numbers work.
While venture capitalists and tech executives debate the “mismatch” between compute and monetization, a more tangible crisis is unfolding far from Silicon Valley. A growing grassroots opposition to AI data centers remains largely below the radar here in San Francisco. I travel to Sioux Falls, South Dakota a few times a year to visit my in-laws. It’s not a region known for being anti-business. Yet even there, a “data center rebellion” has been brewing. Even though the recent attempt to overturn a re-zoning ordinance did not succeed, the level of community pushback in the heart of the Midwest signals that these projects no longer enjoy a guaranteed green light.
.
This resistance is not merely reflexive NIMBYism. It represents a sophisticated, multi-front challenge to the physical infrastructure AI requires. For leadership teams planning for the future, this means “compute availability” is no longer just a procurement question. It is now tied to local politics, grid stability, water management, and city approval processes. In the course of trying to understand the growing opposition to AI data centers, I’ve been examining the specific drivers behind this opposition and why the assumption of limitless infrastructure growth is colliding with hard constraints.
The Grid Capacity Crunch and the Ratepayer Revolt
AI data centers function as grid-scale industrial loads. Individual projects now request 100+ megawatts, and some proposals reach into the gigawatt range. One proposed Michigan facility, for example, would consume 1.4 gigawatts, nearly exhausting the region’s remaining 1.5 gigawatts of headroom and roughly matching the electricity needs of about a million homes. This happens because AI hardware is incredibly dense and uses a massive amount of electricity. It also runs constantly. Since AI work doesn’t have “off” hours, power companies can’t rely on the usual quiet periods they use to balance the rest of the grid.
The politics come down to who pays the bill. Residents in many areas have seen their home utility rates jump by 25% or 30% after big data centers moved in, even though they were promised rates wouldn’t change. People are afraid they will end up paying for the power company’s new equipment. This happens when a utility builds massive substations just for one company, but the cost ends up being shared by everyone. When you add in state and local tax breaks, it gets even worse. Communities deal with all the downsides of the project while the financial benefits are eaten away by tax breaks and credits.
The result is a rare bipartisan alignment around a simple demand: hyperscalers should pay their full cost of service. Notably, Microsoft has moved in that direction publicly, committing to cover grid-upgrade costs and pursue rate structures intended to insulate residential customers — an implicit admission that the old incentive playbook has become a political liability (and, in some places, an electoral one).
High-density AI compute generates immense heat, requiring cooling systems that can consume millions of gallons of water daily. In desert municipalities like Chandler, Arizona, and Tucson, this creates direct competition with agricultural irrigation and residential drinking supplies. Proposed facilities may withdraw hundreds of millions of gallons annually from stressed aquifers or municipal systems, raising fears that industrial users will deplete wells serving farms and homes. Data center developers frequently respond with technical solutions like dry cooling and closed-loop designs. However, communities have learned the trade-off: dry cooling shifts the burden to electricity, and closed-loop systems still lose water to the atmosphere and require constant refills. The practical outcome is that cooling architecture is now a first-order constraint. In Tucson, a project known locally as “Project Blue” faced enough pushback over water rights that the developer had to revisit the cooling approach midstream.
Beyond resource consumption, these facilities create a significant noise problem. Industrial-scale cooling fans and backup diesel generators create a “constant hum” that represents daily intrusion into previously quiet neighborhoods. In Florida, residents near a proposed facility serving 2,500 families and an elementary school cite sleep disruption and health risks as primary objections, elevating the issue from nuisance to harm. The noise also hits farms hard. In Wisconsin, residents reported that the low-frequency hum makes livestock, particularly horses, nervous and skittish. This disrupts farm life in a way that standard commercial development just doesn’t. This is why municipalities are tightening requirements: acoustic modeling, enforceable decibel limits at property lines, substantial setbacks (sometimes on the order of 200 feet), and berms that are no longer “nice-to-have” concessions but baseline conditions for approval.
Communities are questioning whether the small number of jobs created is worth the local impact. Developers highlight billion-dollar capital investments and construction employment spikes, but residents focus on steady-state reality: AI data centers employ far fewer permanent workers per square foot than manufacturing facilities of comparable scale. Chandler, Arizona officials noted that existing corridor facilities employ fewer than 100 people despite massive physical footprints. Wisconsin residents contrast promised “innovation campuses” with operational facilities requiring only dozens to low hundreds of permanent staff — mostly specialized technicians — making the “job creation” pitch ring hollow. When a data center replaces farmland or light manufacturing, communities weigh not just direct employment but opportunity cost: lost agricultural jobs, foregone retail development, and mixed-use projects that might generate broader economic activity.
Opposition scales faster than infrastructure: one local win becomes a national template for blocking the next project.
The secretive way these deals are made is often what fuels the most anger. A recurring pattern is what some call the “sleeping giant” dynamic: residents learn late that officials and developers have been negotiating for months, often under NDAs, sometimes through shell entities and codenames. In Wisconsin, Microsoft’s “Project Nova” became a symbol of this approach; in Minnesota’s Hermantown, a year of undisclosed discussions triggered similar backlash. In Florida, opponents were furious when a major project was tucked into a consent agenda. Since these agendas are meant for routine business, it felt like a deliberate attempt to bypass public debate. Trust vanishes when people believe advisors have a conflict of interest, like a consultant who seems to be helping both the municipality and the developer. After that happens, technical claims are treated as nothing more than a sales pitch. You won’t get people back on board until you provide neutral analysis and commitments that can actually be enforced.
What started as isolated neighborhood friction has professionalized into a coordinated national movement. Opposition groups now share legal playbooks and technical templates across state lines, allowing residents in “frontier” states like South Dakota or Michigan to mobilize with the sophistication of seasoned activists. The financial stakes are real: between April and June 2025 alone, approximately $98 billion in proposed projects were blocked or delayed, according to Data Center Watch. This is no longer just a zoning headache, it’s a political landmine. In Arizona and Georgia, bipartisan coalitions have already ousted officials over data center approvals, signaling to local boards that greenlighting a hyperscale facility without deep community buy-in can be a career-ending move.
The US has the chips, but China has centralized command over power and infrastructure.
The opposition is also finding an unlikely ally in the energy markets. While the industry narrative is one of “limitless demand,” the actual market prices for long-term power and natural gas aren’t spiking, but are actually staying remarkably flat. There is a massive disconnect between the hype and the math. Utilities are currently racing to build nearly double the capacity that even the most optimistic analysts project for 2030. This suggests we may be overbuilding “ghost infrastructure.” We are asking local communities to sacrifice their land and grid stability for a gold rush that the markets themselves don’t fully believe in.
This “data center rebellion” creates a strategic bottleneck that no amount of venture capital can easily bypass. While the U.S. maintains a clear lead in high-end chips, we are hitting a wall on how we manage the mundane essentials like electricity and water. In the geopolitical race, the US has the chips, but China has the centralized command over infrastructure. Our democratic model requires transparency and public buy-in to function. If U.S. companies keep relying on secret deals to push through expensive, overbuilt infrastructure, they risk a total collapse of community trust.
