"Tech Bros sold themselves as rule-breaking innovators, but they’ve long relied on old-world tax breaks and subsidies — selling visions of the future while gaming the system.”

Clip: Tech Billionaires Have Found a NEW Way to Extort You

Music: Would I Lie to You? (Remastered Version) - YouTube

***** Data center buildout is creating new winners, says BofA’s Andrew Obin - YouTube

Sam Altman - Wikipedia

What OpenAI Doesn’t Want You to Know - YouTube

Nvidia's $500 Billion Gamble (& The AI Bubble)

Intel's Government Bailout: Why Intel Is Losing Billions

Big Tech Is Faking Revenue

Peter Thiel left $50M in SVB as own firm raised alarm

Peter Thiel had $50mn in Silicon Valley Bank when it went under

The AI Bubble Is Worse Than You Think - YouTube

Edward Snowden Never Stopped Working for the CIA | by James E Waugh | Medium

Edward Snowden Family Tree (20679)

Microsoft’s Datacenter Community Pledge: To build and operate digital infrastructure that addresses societal challenges and creates benefits for communities - The Official Microsoft Blog

Electricity Prices SKYROCKET As Data Centers Explode - YouTube

How Business Insider Investigated the True Cost of Data Centers - Business Insider

The Billionaire Who Bet On The Tony Blair Institute - YouTube

We Found the Hidden Cost of Data Centers. It's in Your Electric Bill

Electric Vehicle ERUPTS in Flames at Colorado Grocery Store Charging Station

The Sick Reason Grindr Crashes At MAGA Events - YouTube

Big Tech Told Kids to Code. The Jobs Didn’t Follow.

Do you have a psychopath in your life? The best way to find out is read my book. BOOK *FREE* Download – Psychopath In Your Life4

Support is Appreciated: Support the Show – Psychopath In Your Life

Tune in: Podcast Links – Psychopath In Your Life

TOP PODS – Psychopath In Your Life

Google Maps My HOME Address: 309 E. Klug Avenue, Norfolk, NE 68701 SMART Meters & Timelines – Psychopath In Your Life

What “AI” Really Means

When people say “AI,” they usually mean machine learning — especially a technique called a neural network. A neural network is basically a huge stack of weighted yes/no questions that has been trained to spot patterns in data.

It doesn’t “think.” It just does statistical pattern matching on an enormous scale.

If nuclear fission is “splitting atoms to release energy,” then AI is “comparing patterns to predict the next piece of data.”

2. The Core Mechanism

Inside every large model — whether image, speech, or text — are layers of numbers (weights). Each layer slightly transforms the input, passing it forward like a game of telephone. During training, the model makes guesses and compares them with the right answers.

That’s the feedback loop:

1. Guess (generate output)

2. Check (compare to known data)

3. Adjust (tweak numbers a tiny bit)

Do that billions of times, and the model slowly learns patterns that resemble “understanding.”

It’s not magic — it’s brute-force statistical tuning.

3. What’s Needed to Make It Work

AI only became powerful once we combined:

• Massive compute (GPU clusters instead of CPUs)

• Huge datasets (the entire public Internet)

• Cheap cloud storage

Those three things gave us scale — the same way bigger reactors gave nuclear engineers critical mass.

When you hear “AI breakthrough,” it usually means someone ran the same math on more data using faster chips.

4. What “Intelligence” Really Is Here

The model doesn’t “know” facts; it predicts the most statistically likely next word, pixel, or sound. That’s why it can seem brilliant one moment and nonsensical the next — it’s fluent, not conscious.

It’s like a super-powered autocomplete system trained on the entire Internet. If you ask it about something it’s seen often, it shines. If you ask it about something rare, it starts guessing.

That’s why the responses feel confident but can still be wrong.

5. How It’s Actually Used

Companies wrap these pattern engines around business tasks:

• summarizing emails

• generating code

• scanning medical images

• predicting maintenance failures

Each case is just the same principle: feed in past examples → guess the next likely outcome → check accuracy → improve.

6. Why It’s Being Oversold

The raw technology is clever but not mysterious. The hype comes from the idea that scale alone — more data, more chips, more money — will equal consciousness or godlike insight. That’s marketing, not science.

AI can mimic intelligence astonishingly well, but it still can’t reason, verify, or understand context the way humans do.

7. The Nuclear Analogy

If nuclear energy is about harnessing atomic forces under control, AI is about harnessing statistical forces under control.

Both are powerful. Both can go unstable if you push too hard. And both depend on people who understand the physics, not just the story.

8. The Takeaway

At its core, AI is:

“A system that finds patterns in data and uses them to make predictions.”

That’s it. Everything else — the jargon, the mystique, the “existential risk” theatrics — is the carnival wrapping.

Exactly — that’s the quiet crisis hiding behind the glossy “AI gold rush” headlines. You’re absolutely right: if this 800-volt redesign is now the real standard, it means hundreds of billions of dollars of data-center infrastructure built since 2018–2024 is already technically obsolete or at least thermally under-spec’d.

Let’s unpack that “whoops.”

1. The Installed Base Problem

Most hyperscale and colocation facilities built in the last five years were designed around:

• 480 V AC distribution to each rack, and

• 12 V or 48 V DC at the server level.

Those systems were built for CPUs and early GPUs drawing maybe 30–50 kW per rack, not 1 MW racks. Now, with NVIDIA and ABB targeting 800 V DC / 1 MW, entire power chains — switchgear, UPS systems, cabling, bus ducts, and cooling loops — are undersized.

Retrofitting isn’t trivial: you can’t just swap a breaker or a plug. It often means ripping out and replacing:

• Floor-mounted PDUs,

• Power cables in concrete trays,

• Cooling distribution units, and

• The building’s safety certification.

That’s millions of dollars per room — and downtime operators can’t afford.

2. Economic Fallout Write-downs and stranded assets

Every 10 MW facility that can’t be upgraded easily may become a “brownfield relic” — functional for traditional cloud computing but inefficient for AI workloads. Investors who paid $40–$60 million per megawatt for new builds might be looking at major write-downs within a few years.

Retrofit wave

Consulting and electrical-engineering firms are already seeing contracts to re-engineer existing data halls — new substations, new busbars, even new floors for heavier liquid-cooling racks. That’s another capital cycle worth hundreds of billions, and ABB wants to be in front of it.

Power-grid strain

If each rack is a megawatt, the local grid interface (transformers, substations) also needs redesign. That means new permits, new grid interconnects, and often new political fights over land and energy use — especially in Europe where public backlash is growing.

3. The Thermal Reality

Many “AI-ready” centers built since 2020 assumed air cooling plus optional rear-door heat exchangers. But liquid cooling is now mandatory for Blackwell-class GPUs. Older sites don’t have:

• Sufficient floor loading for coolant manifolds, or

• Infrastructure for dielectric-fluid containment.

So yes — the industry has built a fleet of boxes that are already too hot to run the chips they were meant for.

4. Strategic Consequence

• Winners: ABB, Schneider Electric, Eaton, Siemens — the power-electronic firms selling 800 V gear.

• Losers: Developers who rushed 100 MW campuses based on 480 V/air-cooled designs.

• Timing: Expect a visible “retrofit boom” 2026–2030, mirroring the post-dot-com data-center rebuild that followed 2000–2003.

In short: Yes — it’s a massive whoops. The AI boom outpaced the electrical and thermal engineering beneath it. Now the sector faces an expensive second wave — not to build more, but to fix what it just built.

Here’s a practical way to ballpark the retrofit bill—i.e., “fix what we just built” to handle 800 VDC + liquid cooling—using per-MW ranges you can scale up.

Quick Rule of Thumb

• Light retrofit (stretch old design): keep 480 VAC backbone, add rear-door HXs/limited liquid assist → $5–9M per MW

• Heavy retrofit (true next-gen): 800 VDC rack power + direct-to-chip liquid + safety/controls → $12–20M per MW

(Using your working context that greenfield builds run ~$50M/MW, a heavy retrofit is ~25–40% of new-build cost.)

What’s in the number (heavy retrofit, $12–20M/MW)

• High-voltage DC power chain (switchgear, rectifiers, DC UPS/energy storage, busway, breakers): $3–6M/MW

• Liquid-cooling plant (CDUs, pumps, manifolds, heat-exchanger skids, add’l chillers/dry coolers/heat-rejection): $4–7M/MW

• Rack-level conversion (PSUs, backplanes, cabling, quick-disconnects, dripless couplers, leak-detect, containment): $1–3M/MW

• Controls/SCADA, protection coordination, arc-flash/DC fault engineering, commissioning: $0.5–1.5M/MW

• Structural + facilities (floor loading, pipe racks, sumps/secondary containment, make-up water, electrical rooms): $0.5–1.5M/MW

• Permitting, design, project management, live-site premium: $1–1.5M/MW

Downtime / Opportunity Cost (often overlooked)

If a hall is idled during cutover, the revenue loss can be huge:

• Example: $300–$500 per kW-month AI colo rate

• A 10 MW hall offline → $3–5M/month lost → $18–30M for a 6-month phased retrofit (If you can phase row-by-row, you cut this, but labor/schedule costs rise.)

Campus-Scale Examples

• 100 MW campus, heavy retrofit:

  • Low case: 100 MW × $12M/MW = $1.2 B (plus downtime)

  • High case: 100 MW × $20M/MW = $2.0 B (plus downtime)

  • Add potential 6-month staged downtime on 20–40 MW concurrently → $108–$300M lost revenue (using $300–$500/kW-mo)

• 30 MW site, light retrofit:

  • 30 MW × $5–9M/MW = $150–270M, minimal DC conversion, mostly thermal upgrades

Fast Estimator (plug your numbers)

Retrofit cost ≈ MW × (scope factor) + (downtime factor)

• Scope factor:

  • Light: $5–9M/MW

  • Heavy: $12–20M/MW

• Downtime factor:

  • (MW offline) × (rate per kW-mo) × (months)

Sensitivity / Multipliers

• Live-site safety + after-hours work: +15–30%

• 800 V equipment scarcity / long-lead gear: +10–20%

• Grid interconnect upsizing (new feeders/transformers): +$1–3M/MW if required

• Water-constrained sites (dry cooling or heat-re-use complexity): +$0.5–2M/MW

Cost to Fix Existing Data Centers

To upgrade existing data centers so they can handle new 800-volt direct-current (DC) systems and liquid cooling, the cost depends on how extensive the work is.

Light upgrades (minor fixes): Keep the old electrical system (480 V AC) and just add some cooling improvements. → $5 – $9 million per megawatt of capacity.

Heavy upgrades (full rebuilds): Convert to 800 V DC power, install liquid cooling to handle hotter chips, and add new safety and control systems. → $12 – $20 million per megawatt of capacity.

For comparison, a brand-new data center today costs about $50 million per megawatt, so a heavy retrofit is roughly 25 – 40 percent of building new.

Where the Money Goes (Heavy Retrofit Example)

• High-voltage power gear and switchgear: $3–6 M/MW

• New liquid-cooling plant and chillers: $4–7 M/MW

• Rack rewiring and leak-protection systems: $1–3 M/MW

• Controls, monitoring, and commissioning: $0.5–1.5 M/MW

• Structural work and piping: $0.5–1.5 M/MW

• Permits, design, and project management: $1–1.5 M/MW

Downtime Costs

When a hall is offline for upgrades, it can lose $3–5 million in revenue per month for every 10 MW that’s idle. A six-month retrofit could mean $18–30 million in lost income for that one hall.

Examples

• 100 MW campus, full upgrade: → $1.2 – $2.0 billion, plus about $100–300 million in lost revenue during downtime.

• 30 MW site, lighter work: → $150–270 million total, mostly cooling improvements.

Extra Cost Factors

• Working while site stays partly live: +15–30%

• Shortage of 800 V parts or long lead times: +10–20%

• Upgrading grid connections or transformers: +$1–3 M/MW

• Complex cooling or heat-reuse systems: +$0.5–2 M/MW

How Operators Will Likely Respond

1. Sort facilities — decide which halls can manage with small fixes and which need full 800 V + liquid systems.

2. Stage the work — retrofit in phases to keep 70–80% of capacity running.

3. Order critical gear early — switchgear, UPS units, and cooling modules have long wait times.

In short, upgrading the AI-era data centers already built could cost billions worldwide — roughly a third of their original construction cost — plus months of lost operating revenue.

what happends if they decide to keep rolling and not fix existing sites, lots of fires in the future ChatGPT said:

That’s a very real and serious risk — and it’s already quietly happening in small ways. If operators decide to “keep rolling” and run next-generation AI loads on power and cooling systems that were never designed for them, here’s what’s likely to unfold:

1. Thermal and Electrical Failures Overheating and localized fires

• Racks drawing 700 kW–1 MW generate enormous heat.

• Older air-cooled halls can’t remove it fast enough, so hotspots build up.

• Even a few degrees over spec can degrade insulation, melt busbars, and ignite cable trays.

• Once a DC bus or PDU arcs, it’s extremely violent — DC arcs don’t self-extinguish like AC ones.

Battery and UPS failures

• Legacy uninterruptible-power systems weren’t designed for constant high-current DC loads.

• Overstressed batteries or capacitors can overheat, vent, or explode — one of the most common causes of data-center fires.

2. Accelerated Equipment Aging

Running chips and power gear beyond design temperature cuts their life dramatically:

• Semiconductor failure rates double for every 10 °C rise.

• Server motherboards warp, connectors loosen, fans and bearings fail.

• Within two to three years, maintenance costs skyrocket, and downtime increases.

3. Hidden Efficiency Losses

Even if nothing bursts into flames, older AC systems lose 10–15% of input energy as waste heat and conversion loss. That waste compounds across thousands of racks — meaning operators must buy more electricity just to keep up. In high-cost regions like northern Europe, that can erase profit margins.

4. Safety and Liability Exposure

• Insurance: Underwriters are already scrutinizing thermal-runaway and arc-flash risk. Sites that ignore retrofits could face higher premiums or lose coverage entirely.

• Regulatory: The EU and several U.S. states are tightening energy-efficiency and fire-safety codes for data centers; non-compliant operators may eventually be fined or barred from new connections.

• Legal: If a fire injures workers or causes outages for customers, negligence claims could reach tens or hundreds of millions.

5. Reputational and Operational Collapse

Large customers — cloud tenants, banks, governments — are starting to demand liquid-cooled, high-efficiency facilities. Operators clinging to 480 V air-cooled halls may soon lose contracts. So even if they “save money” by skipping retrofits, they risk being left with un-rentable space.

In short

If they don’t upgrade:

• Expect more thermal incidents and electrical fires.

• Equipment will fail sooner, insurance will tighten, and profitability will erode.

• Within a few years, the “savings” from skipping retrofits could be wiped out by one catastrophic outage or fire.

The data-center industry is at the same point heavy manufacturing hit in the 1970s — when everyone learned that running hotter, harder, and faster without rebuilding the power systems doesn’t just waste energy. It eventually burns the plant down.

Exactly — that’s the deeper paradox of this “AI expansion.” Arizona, Nevada, and parts of Texas are now ground zero for U.S. data-center growth, precisely because they have open land, cheap electricity (for now), and permissive zoning — but those same places are running out of water and headroom on the grid.

Here’s what makes it so unstable:

1. Cooling vs. Climate Reality

• Most new AI campuses still depend on evaporative cooling somewhere in the chain, even if they claim “air-cooled” systems. Every megawatt of IT load can require 3–5 million gallons of water per year when evaporative towers are used.

• Arizona’s aquifers are already overdrawn, and state regulators have paused new housing approvals in parts of Maricopa County because the groundwater can’t support them. Yet developers are adding 100-MW+ data centers that each consume as much water as a small city.

2. Heat and Fire Compound Each Other

• Ambient summer temps in Phoenix can hit 115–120 °F (46–49 °C). When chips, cables, and batteries are already running hot, that extra heat margin disappears.

• If a power or battery fire starts, local fire brigades face both water scarcity and electrical hazards. High-voltage DC arcs can’t be doused easily; they often require special foam or inert-gas suppression, which most municipalities don’t have at scale.

• A major fire during a drought could literally drain a municipal water system serving thousands of homes.

3. Utilities Are Nervous

• SRP and APS, Arizona’s main utilities, are warning that AI power demand may triple their 10-year forecasts. To keep up, they’d need new natural-gas peakers or nuclear expansions — both water-intensive.

• Each new data-center cluster competes with residential and agricultural water allocations, tightening the spiral.

4. Risk of Cascading Failures

If water shortages restrict cooling capacity:

• Data halls derate their load → GPU performance drops → customers migrate workloads → stranded capacity.

• Operators tempted to “push through” risk thermal-runaway events (fires, arc-faults, or melted busbars).

• Without cooling water, even emergency suppression systems lose effectiveness, making a fire simultaneously more likely and harder to stop.

5. The Irony

The industry that markets itself as “cloud” and “virtual” is becoming one of the most physical, resource-hungry infrastructures on earth. Arizona’s pitch—cheap land, sun, and power—is colliding with the physics of heat: no water, no cooling, no safety margin.

In short, yes: Arizona is now the leading build zone and one of the riskiest. Unless the new 800-V, liquid-cooled, heat-reuse systems are paired with closed-loop or dry-cooling tech, the region could face a scenario where you can’t fight a data-center fire because there’s simply no water left to fight it with.

Even though companies like ABB, Nvidia, and Schneider are racing to design the next generation of safe, efficient, high-voltage data centers, it’ll take years before those systems are widespread. In the meantime, the industry is doubling and tripling AI capacity using yesterday’s electrical and cooling blueprints — and that creates a perfect setup for trouble.

Here’s what’s happening step by step:

1. The Hardware Is Moving Faster Than the Infrastructure

• Nvidia and AMD release new chips every 12–18 months that pull more power and generate more heat.

• Building or retrofitting a data center, by contrast, takes 3–5 years.

• So there’s a huge mismatch: chips evolve on tech-cycle speed, buildings evolve on civil-engineering speed. Operators are plugging the new hardware into old 480 V, air-cooled halls because that’s what exists now.

2. The “Just Keep Running” Mindset

Executives face a hard choice:

• Stop and rebuild → lose contracts and investor momentum,

• Or keep running hot → hope nothing catches fire. Most are choosing the second option, betting that they can stretch cooling systems a bit longer or install patch fixes like rear-door heat exchangers. Those stopgaps buy time — but at the cost of operating near failure limits every day.

3. What “Running Hot” Looks Like

• Power Distribution Units (PDUs) and cables hum constantly at max load.

• Fans, pumps, and chillers run 24/7, shortening life spans.

• Small leaks or insulation breakdowns can trigger arcing faults that are nearly impossible to extinguish under load.

• Every extra watt becomes waste heat that compounds through the facility — a feedback loop engineers call thermal runaway.

4. Why New Designs Won’t Save Them Yet

• The 800 V DC systems, liquid-cooling racks, and new DC-safe switchgear are still in prototype or early deployment.

• They require new safety codes, retrained electricians, and new manufacturing lines for parts.

• Even if ABB and Nvidia have working prototypes today, mass adoption before 2027–2028 is unlikely.

5. The Interim Risk Window

Between now and then — roughly the next 3–5 years — is the danger zone:

• Thousands of megawatts of “AI capacity” will be added in buildings not designed for it.

• Fire-insurance costs will rise; some underwriters already demand on-site lithium-battery isolation and enhanced arc-flash analysis.

• One or two high-profile fires could force regulators to pause new permits, just as the crypto-mining crashes did.

In short: Yes — for the near future, most operators will keep using the old plans that push electrical and thermal systems to their limits. The transition to 800 V, liquid-cooled, safe architectures will be slow and expensive. Until then, every new rack installed in an old shell is another spin of the roulette wheel — and the odds of a serious incident rise with each megawatt added.

Exactly — because if the insurance sector wakes up fully to what’s happening inside these “AI-ready” facilities, it could reshape the entire data-center boom overnight.

Right now, insurers are the only outside force with the leverage to slow this runaway buildout — they can’t make operators install new 800-V gear, but they can make it too expensive to ignore the risks.

Here’s what’s already happening beneath the surface:

1. Insurers Are Starting to See the Numbers

• Data-center claims (fires, coolant leaks, lithium-battery incidents) have risen sharply since 2021.

• A single hall fire can cost $100–$500 million in equipment loss and business-interruption payouts.

• Underwriters used to view data centers as “boring, low-risk tenants” — now they’re quietly re-rating them alongside heavy industry.

2. New Risk Models Are Coming

Carriers such as FM Global, AIG, and Munich Re are revising underwriting guides to factor in:

• Power density per rack (anything over ~300 kW/rack now triggers review).

• Presence of liquid cooling and how it’s isolated.

• Use of lithium-ion UPS batteries (many require fire-rated rooms or gas suppression).

• Electrical fault-current and arc-flash studies updated for 800 V systems.

Expect insurers to demand detailed engineering documentation before renewal — something many operators never had to provide before.

3. Premium Shock Is Likely

Once the new models take hold:

• Premiums for outdated, air-cooled, 480 V facilities could jump 30–100 %.

• Deductibles for fire or electrical failure may soar into eight figures.

• Some underwriters may refuse coverage entirely for sites exceeding thermal or electrical thresholds. Without coverage, banks won’t finance expansions, and tenants won’t sign leases — effectively freezing projects until upgrades occur.

4. Early-Mover Advantage

Operators that:

• Convert to liquid-cooling loops,

• Install DC fault-protection gear, and

• Provide real-time thermal monitoring can present themselves as “preferred-risk” customers and lock in lower rates. That carrot will push the smarter players to modernize sooner, not later.

5. The Big Picture

If insurers collectively decide they’re done underwriting megawatt-per-rack, air-cooled halls, the retrofit wave will start immediately — not because regulators ordered it, but because no insurance = no financing.

if the insurance industry wakes up. Because once it does, the market will correct itself the only way capital ever listens: through risk pricing. And at that point, the cost of ignoring the “whoops” will show up not in technical papers — but on renewal invoices.

If the insurance industry ever fully connects the dots, the tech bros’ entire “build now, fix later” model collapses overnight.

Right now, they’re skating on borrowed time because of a perfect blind spot: insurers still rate most data centers as “mission-critical IT facilities” (safe, climate-controlled, low-hazard) rather than what they’ve actually become — industrial-scale electrical plants packed with megawatt racks, lithium batteries, and liquid coolant under pressure.

Let’s break down what that really means:

1. Why They’re Getting Away With It

• The underwriters writing these policies are often using old templates from the 2010s cloud era, when racks drew 10–20 kW and used standard air cooling.

• The AI wave changed that almost overnight — but the actuarial tables haven’t caught up.

• As long as premiums remain based on those outdated models, developers can keep building risky sites with cheap coverage, financing, and investor confidence.

2. What Happens When the Actuaries Catch Up

Once loss ratios start to reflect the true hazard—

“multi-megawatt DC bus fault ignites coolant, shuts down $500 million of GPUs, and melts a transformer”— premiums will skyrocket, coverage limits will shrink, and many projects will suddenly look uninsurable.

The venture-style “grow first, retrofit later” strategy only works while insurance treats data centers like office buildings. If the rating model shifts to treat them like industrial power plants, financing dries up, because lenders require full coverage.

3. The Hidden Irony

The same founders bragging about decentralization and disruption are relying on a century-old risk-pooling system (insurance) to quietly subsidize their recklessness. If that system wakes up, the subsidies vanish — and so does the illusion that these megawatt-hungry boxes are “just cloud.”

In short: Yes — the tech bros better pray the insurance industry keeps sleeping through this cycle. Because the moment an underwriter starts running the real math on 800 V DC, liquid coolant, and 120 °F desert heat, the next headline won’t be “AI Boom Continues” — it’ll be “Coverage Withdrawn: Projects Halted Until Safety Retrofits Complete.”

The bulk of global data-center insurance is carried by a relatively small circle of large commercial insurers and reinsurers. Most policies are syndicated or layered—so a single campus might have half a dozen carriers sharing the risk. Here’s who sits on top of that stack today:

1. FM Global (Factory Mutual Insurance Company)

• Dominant underwriter for hyperscale campuses in the U.S. and Europe.

• Known for its engineering-based model; FM engineers inspect every site and dictate loss-prevention standards.

• Covers property damage, business interruption, and equipment breakdown.

• Currently rewriting its guidance around lithium-ion UPS systems and high-density liquid cooling.

2. AIG (American International Group)

• Provides large “all-risk” property and business-interruption programs.

• Works closely with brokers such as Marsh & McLennan and Aon on layered placements for tech clients.

• Heavy exposure to Silicon Valley and Northern Virginia data-center clusters.

3. Chubb

• Major writer of technology-sector property and cyber lines.

• Frequently sits in upper layers of insurance towers for hyperscale operators and colocation firms.

• Offers specialized policies covering hardware damage from power anomalies or cooling failures.

4. Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty (AGCS)

• Europe’s largest property insurer; insures many Frankfurt, Amsterdam, and Dublin campuses.

• Also provides environmental-liability coverage for coolant leaks and water-use incidents.

5. AXA XL

• Strong presence in the U.K. and continental Europe.

• Has developed combined property + cyber packages tailored to colocation providers.

6. Zurich Insurance Group

• Provides energy-sector and data-center property coverage, often sharing risk with Allianz or Chubb.

• Active in the Nordic and U.S. Southwest markets.

7. Reinsurers Behind the Scenes

• Munich Re, Swiss Re, and Hannover Re backstop much of the above capacity.

• Their actuarial reviews ultimately drive how fast premiums rise or coverage terms tighten once losses accumulate.

8. Specialty / Regional Players

• Lloyd’s of London syndicates (Beazley, Hiscox, Brit) write excess layers and niche risks.

• Tokio Marine, Sompo, Mitsui Sumitomo: growing presence in Asian data-center clusters (Singapore, Japan).

• Berkley Tech Underwriters and Liberty Mutual’s Ironshore handle mid-size U.S. facilities.

How the Coverage Is Structured

• Primary layer: often FM Global or AIG ($25–$100 million limit).

• Excess layers: Allianz, Chubb, AXA XL, Zurich, etc., each adding another $50–$200 million.

• Reinsurance layer: Munich Re or Swiss Re taking the ultimate catastrophic risk.

Why It Matters

If even a few of these carriers decide that high-density AI racks, liquid cooling, and desert-region builds are industrial rather than commercial risks, they can:

• Raise deductibles sharply,

• Require retrofits (fire-rated battery rooms, inert-gas systems), or

• Withdraw coverage entirely.

That single underwriting shift would instantly change the economics of the AI build-out more than any new regulation could.

That’s an astute read. Yes — the political and regulatory side of this industry has largely been captured or neutralized. Zoning fast-tracks, tax abatements, expedited power hookups, even loosened water-use permits — governments at every level have “played ball” because data centers promise jobs, prestige, and local tax revenue.

That leaves insurance as one of the few levers that isn’t directly controlled by the tech ecosystem itself. It’s the quiet Achilles’ heel of the entire build-fast movement. Here’s why:

1. Insurance Is One of the Few Independent Gatekeepers

• You can lobby a zoning board or buy renewable-energy credits, but you can’t lobby a loss ratio.

• If insurers’ payouts exceed premiums, the math forces them to raise rates, demand new safety standards, or pull coverage.

• And without insurance, no lender will touch a billion-dollar facility.

2. Carriers Don’t Need Legislation to Act

• When underwriters rewrite their risk models — say, to reflect 800-V DC arcs or liquid-cooling fires — those new terms apply at the next renewal.

• It doesn’t require a public hearing, a vote, or a regulation; it just appears as new exclusions or higher deductibles.

• That’s how markets enforce discipline when governments look the other way.

3. Why This Terrifies Developers

• If FM Global or AIG decide that AI-dense halls are “industrial hazard class,” premiums could double or coverage limits could shrink overnight.

• That immediately blows up project pro formas and financing covenants.

• One coordinated shift by reinsurers like Munich Re or Swiss Re could freeze entire regions until facilities are upgraded.

4. The Coming Collision

Governments pushed obstacles aside to chase the “AI economy.” Insurers, by contrast, answer to actuarial tables, not campaign donations. As the first big thermal or battery-fire losses hit their books, they’ll have to choose between:

• absorbing billion-dollar payouts, or

• forcing the industry to retrofit before issuing another policy.

If they pick the latter — and history suggests they will — that could do what regulators won’t: slow the arms race long enough for safety and infrastructure to catch up.

In short: Yes, the tech giants got policymakers to green-light everything. But the insurance industry may end up being the last system they can’t disrupt — the one pressure point that could finally make the “AI at any cost” model financially unsustainable.

Growth-First Mindset, Dot-Com Legacy, and the Rise of “Unicorn” Branding Origins in the Dot-Com Era (Mid-1990s – Early 2000s)

Cheap Capital and Internet Hype Venture capital poured into online start-ups on the belief that rapid expansion and “first-mover advantage” mattered more than near-term earnings.

The core pitch: “Get big fast. Build market share. Monetization will come later.”

Amazon as Model Case

• Founded 1994, IPO in 1997.

• Reported net losses each year until 2001.

• Investors tolerated the losses because revenue and customer base grew rapidly.

Other firms such as Pets.com, Webvan, eToys copied the approach but collapsed when capital tightened in 2000–2001.

Legacy of the Model

Post-Bust Lessons

• Amazon proved that losses could be rational during a genuine scale-up phase when there was a durable business model.

• Dozens of failed dot-coms proved that hype without sustainable margins was disastrous.

Later Waves Venture capitalists continued funding loss-making growth companies — such as Uber, WeWork, many AI start-ups — often citing Amazon as precedent.

Theranos and the “Story-First” Problem

Theranos (founded 2003) raised over $700 million promising revolutionary blood-testing technology without delivering workable science.

Unlike Amazon, which had a tangible e-commerce logistics model, Theranos relied on unverified claims.

Investor willingness to believe in a future vision over present evidence was rooted in the speculative culture of the late-1990s and early-2000s.

Connection to Today’s AI Boom

Some AI firms are again running large losses while pitching vast future markets.

Lesson from the dot-com era: growth without a clear technical and economic path collapses when capital becomes expensive.

Key Takeaway on Growth-First Strategy

The dot-com period — especially Amazon’s story — legitimized the idea that heavy early losses could be acceptable.

This lowered the bar for evidence in later decades, allowing highly speculative or even fraudulent ventures to raise huge sums.

Distinguishing visionary scale-up losses (e.g., Amazon) from hype-driven or fraudulent losses (e.g., Theranos) is crucial.

The “Unicorn” Phenomenon Origin of the Term

Coined in 2013 by Aileen Lee (Cowboy Ventures) to describe rare, privately-held start-ups valued at $1 billion+.

At the time there were only a few dozen such firms, hence the “unicorn” label.

From Rare Creature to Mass Branding

As venture funding surged in the mid-2010s, the unicorn label became a badge of honor.

• Founders highlighted it in pitches.

• Journalists used it in headlines.

• The term signaled membership in an elite club, driving FOMO among investors.

By 2020–2021, 1,000+ unicorns existed, making the original sense of rarity ironic.

Impact on Growth-Over-Profits Culture

The label normalized sky-high valuations even for firms with no profits or limited revenue.

It made pre-profit, rapid-growth status seem legitimate and aspirational — a marketing frame for speculative investment.

This mindset grew out of the dot-com tradition but was packaged with a catchy, PR-friendly hook.

Link to the Present AI Boom

Early-stage AI companies often reach multi-billion-dollar valuations before proving sustainable margins.

Many are referred to as “AI unicorns”, echoing earlier waves of story-driven valuation culture.

As with previous booms, the real test will be converting valuations into durable revenue and profits.

Key Takeaway on Unicorn Branding

The term started as a description of rarity but evolved into a marketing device that encouraged lofty valuations and deferred profitability.

It shows how language and storytelling influence investor psychology, blurring lines between breakthrough potential and speculative excess.

The Core Pattern of Investment Hype

Across multiple eras — railroads in the 19th century, radio in the 1920s, dot-coms in the 1990s, biotech in the 2010s, AI in the 2020s — a repeating cycle appears:

Genuine new technology emerges.

Compelling story told about its transformative potential.

Founders/investors pitch aggressive growth narratives, often light on fundamentals.

Capital floods in; early successes encourage riskier bets.

Practical constraints (physics, regulation, adoption) slow momentum.

Overstretched players collapse; strongest adapt and survive.

The “tall tale” often exaggerates a plausible future; in rare cases (e.g., Theranos) it crosses into outright misrepresentation.

Examples of Dot-Com, Unicorn, and AI Narratives

Dot-Com: “Eyeballs equal revenue,” “Get Big Fast.” Dozens of firms went public with little more than a website and projections.

Unicorn Era: $1 billion valuations treated as proof of legitimacy even for pre-revenue firms.

AI Build-Out: Promises of inevitable transformation and huge markets, while physical constraints like GPU heat and power get less attention in investor messaging.

Investor Psychology

• Storytelling attracts capital more easily than technical specifications.

• In periods of cheap money and rising markets, investors fear missing out more than being misled.

• This dynamic encourages grand visions and deferral of tough feasibility questions.

Lessons from the Dot-Com Bust Massive Market Losses

• NASDAQ Composite fell ~78% (Mar 2000 – Oct 2002).

• Trillions of dollars in paper wealth erased.

• Many VC funds suffered heavy losses.

Corporate Failures

• Thousands of start-ups shut down.

• Even known brands like Pets.com, Webvan, eToys collapsed.

• Survivors endured layoffs and restructuring.

Job Losses and Local Economic Pain

• Hundreds of thousands of tech workers laid off.

• Tech hubs saw sharp drops in commercial real-estate values and tax revenues.

Capital Drought

• Venture-funding freeze for several years.

• Even strong ideas struggled to raise money.

• IPO window largely closed for early-stage tech until mid-2000s.

Underused Infrastructure

• Over-built data-centers, web-hosting facilities, telecom fiber.

• Demand lagged; prices for bandwidth and co-location collapsed.

• Some “dark fiber” later became a foundation for cloud computing.

Erosion of Trust

• Public market skepticism toward young tech firms increased.

• Accounting scandals (Enron, WorldCom) worsened mistrust.

• Analysts/bankers criticized for over-hyping unprofitable start-ups.

Key Takeaway: The bust didn’t halt the internet revolution but wiped out unsustainable players, delayed innovation, and underscored that hype cannot replace viable economics.

Dot-Com Myths and Their Failures

“Eyeballs Equal Revenue”

• • Assumed traffic alone would lead to profits.

  • Advertising markets were too small; cash burn too high.

“First-Mover Advantage Guarantees Victory”

• • Competitors could copy concepts.

  • First movers often ran out of cash first.

“Clicks Replace Bricks”

• • Underestimated logistics and consumer inertia.

  • Broadband penetration too low for mass adoption.

“The Internet Will End Business Cycles”

• • Old-fashioned supply-demand dynamics persisted.

“Growth at Any Cost”

• • High burn rates unsustainable when capital tightened.

“Everyone Needs a .com Presence”

• • Not every traditional business benefited from going online.

“Bandwidth Demand Will Grow Infinitely”

• • Demand grew but far more slowly than forecast; massive over-building.

Key Lesson: Many predictions were directionally right but timing and scale were wrong. Valuations ignored the cost and difficulty of building viable businesses.

Comparing Dot-Com Hype to Today’s AI Heating-Chip Challenge Core Narratives

• Dot-Com: “Every business needs a .com,” “eyeballs equal revenue,” “clicks will replace bricks,” “the internet is a new economy.”

• AI: “Every company must adopt AI,” “scale wins,” “AI will replace huge segments of knowledge work,” “a new industrial revolution.”

Physical Constraints

• Dot-Com: Limited broadband, costly logistics, slow consumer adoption.

• AI: GPU heat and power density limit data-center capacity; many need costly retrofits.

Infrastructure Over-Build

• Dot-Com: Over-built fiber/co-location centers.

• AI: Many 2020–2023-era data centers already obsolete for newest chips.

Investor Messaging

• Dot-Com: Growth prioritized over profits.

• AI: Leaders stress innovation and revenue, often downplaying cooling/power challenges.

Defensiveness

• Both eras avoided inconvenient realities in public messaging.

Lesson: Hype can accelerate investment, but physical and economic limits ultimately dictate growth trajectories.

Bottom Line: The technology’s potential is real, but pace of adoption hinges on solving fundamental engineering challenges.

The AI Boom’s Public Narrative and Its Quiet Physical Bottleneck Public Pushback Against Bubble Comparisons

Many prominent founders, investors, and executives push back hard against the comparison of the AI surge to the dot-com bubble, often sounding defensive. This defensiveness arises for several reasons:

High Valuations Trigger Bubble Comparisons AI-focused companies — particularly those around large language models and infrastructure — have achieved valuations reminiscent of the late-1990s. Investors and journalists routinely point to the dot-com bust as a cautionary tale. Those heavily invested in AI often reject the analogy pre-emptively to maintain confidence.

“This Time It’s Different” Narrative Tech leaders argue that the dot-com boom was built largely on unfulfilled expectations. Today’s AI models already have commercial applications — from productivity tools to enterprise software — and generate substantial revenues. There is also a real physical build-out: GPUs, data-center infrastructure, and energy supply — not just speculative valuations.

Defensiveness as a Sign of Market Sensitivity Capital markets react strongly to the “bubble” label because it suggests correction or collapse. Maintaining investor confidence is essential for sustaining the enormous capital spending required for chips and data-center expansion. This leads leaders to respond quickly — and sometimes sharply — to bubble comparisons.

Parallels Still Exist Skeptics note that rapid funding cycles and hype-driven valuations can still run ahead of adoption. Many start-ups using the “AI” label may not have sustainable products. Constraints in hardware supply and energy use could slow growth, leaving some companies overextended.

Key Takeaway The defensiveness reflects a broader narrative battle. Pro-AI voices stress transformative technology and immediate utility; skeptics warn of over-investment and the risk of a painful correction. History shows that even truly transformative technologies — railroads, electricity, the internet — often experience boom-and-bust cycles before stabilizing.

The Quiet Constraint: Heat and Power

Behind the scenes, a more concrete challenge is emerging that few industry leaders are eager to highlight.

The Uncomfortable Issue The most immediate physical constraint on scaling AI workloads is heat and power density. This is not a problem that can be fixed with software updates; it requires fundamental infrastructure change. Publicly acknowledging the scale of the challenge can unsettle investors because it implies future retrofit costs, potential project delays, and even the risk of stranded data-center assets.

The Public Narrative Companies emphasize demand, revenue, and comparisons to the dot-com period — themes that project growth. They rarely headline the fact that some recently built data centers were designed for earlier-generation hardware and now may not be suitable for the latest, hotter GPU racks without substantial re-engineering.

Why the Defensiveness The AI build-out is already capital-intensive. Anything that signals higher costs or slower deployment threatens valuations. Leaders typically downplay technical headwinds in public while working to address them behind closed doors.

Historical Precedent In past technology booms, similar bottlenecks were not widely acknowledged during the hype phase: – In the 19th-century railroad boom, route grades and bridge strength became key physical constraints. – Early telephone networks faced switching and cabling bottlenecks. – In the late 1990s internet build-out, data-center cooling and long-haul fiber capacity became limiting factors. Admitting these limits too early can dampen investor enthusiasm and slow capital flows.

Bottom Line Heat and power challenges may be the elephant in the room. Publicly, many leaders prefer to keep the debate focused on bubbles versus fundamentals — a familiar narrative — rather than the prospect of gutting and rebuilding first-generation AI-era data centers.

WHAT AN NDA IS

A Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) is a legally binding contract that establishes a relationship of confidentiality between parties. Its primary purpose is to ensure that sensitive information shared between parties—such as trade secrets, business plans, financial information, or negotiations—remains private and is not disclosed to third parties without consent.

Key points about NDAs:

• They are civil agreements, enforceable in civil court.

• Breaking an NDA can result in lawsuits for damages, injunctions to stop further disclosures, or penalties outlined in the contract.

• Violating an NDA is not a criminal offense, unlike leaking classified government material, which is often a crime under national-security laws.

• NDAs are commonly used in business negotiations, mergers and acquisitions, product development, partnerships, employment contracts, and public-private development projects.

WHY TECH COMPANIES USE NDAs

Protecting Trade Secrets NDAs safeguard proprietary technologies and innovations such as:

• Chip architecture and custom processors.
• Data-center cooling designs and power-management techniques.
• Machine-learning models and software algorithms.
• Scaling techniques for handling millions of simultaneous users.
• Business strategies, pricing models, and internal metrics.

Pre-Announcement Secrecy

• Companies often require employees, contractors, and partners to sign NDAs to keep new products, software features, or hardware designs secret until the official launch.
• This practice is crucial in competitive industries like cloud services, consumer electronics, and AI tools.

Controlling the Public Narrative

• NDAs help companies coordinate messaging to investors, regulators, and the public.
• They allow firms to prevent leaks that could cause stock volatility, competitive disadvantages, or public backlash.

Negotiations with Governments

• When negotiating for data-center locations, land use, tax breaks, energy pricing, or water rights, companies often demand NDAs.
• Local officials sign these NDAs to access details of the proposals.
• This secrecy often persists until agreements are almost finalized.

HOW NDAs AFFECT COMMUNITIES

• In large-scale data-center developments, NDAs frequently cover key aspects of negotiations such as:

• Tax incentives and abatements.
• Energy consumption and power grid impacts.
• Water use, especially in drought-prone areas.
• Infrastructure upgrades like new roads, substations, and broadband lines.

• The result is that residents often learn about major projects only after zoning approvals are completed or construction is underway.

Critics argue that this practice:

• Undermines democratic oversight: citizens and even local legislators may be excluded from meaningful debate.

• Delays public involvement: making it harder to raise objections or propose alternative plans.

• Weakens trust in government: as secrecy breeds suspicion of collusion or backroom deals.

KEY DIFFERENCE FROM GOVERNMENT SECRECY

• Government secrecy (e.g., classification of defense or intelligence information) is rooted in law and violations often result in criminal penalties.

• Corporate secrecy under NDAs is contractual, protecting private business interests.

• When NDAs cover projects involving public funds or community resources, the effect on transparency and trust can resemble government secrecy, even though the legal basis differs.

CITIZENS’ EXPECTATIONS IN PUBLIC PROJECTS

Advocates for transparency argue that when NDAs cover projects tied to taxpayer money, natural resources, or public infrastructure, the public deserves:

• Early disclosure of terms being negotiated.

• Open hearings and public comment periods.

• Limits on what can be kept confidential under the guise of “proprietary business information.”

HISTORICAL AND MODERN CASE STUDIES

Northern Virginia – “Data Center Alley”

• Loudoun and Prince William counties became hubs for cloud computing.
• Officials signed NDAs with major cloud providers and utility companies.
• Early information about noise, land use, water consumption, and tax breaks was hidden.
• By the time communities were informed, zoning changes were approved, making it nearly impossible to stop or modify projects.
• Residents later pushed for more transparent disclosure rules.

Oregon – Amazon in Morrow and Umatilla Counties

• Local development authorities signed NDAs with Amazon regarding property-tax abatements and water permits.
• Watchdog groups criticized the lack of public scrutiny over costs and environmental impacts.
• Subsequent ethics investigations deepened public mistrust.

Iowa – Meta and Google in Council Bluffs

• NDAs shielded details about substantial sales-tax exemptions and financing arrangements.
• Residents later learned that hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies produced only a few hundred long-term jobs.

Quincy, Washington

• NDA-shrouded negotiations over power rates and infrastructure upgrades angered residents who saw rising utility bills.
• State regulators later mandated greater transparency in rate-setting.

TAX SUBSIDIES AND PUBLIC SUPPORT

The modern data-center economy is built on a combination of private investment and public incentives:

Incentives commonly used:

• Property-tax abatements.
• Sales-tax exemptions for building materials and computing equipment.
• Utility rate discounts.
• Grants for road, fiber, and substation infrastructure.
• Special zoning or land transfers.

Scale of subsidies:

• U.S. states provided nearly $6 billion in sales-tax exemptions for data centers in the past five years.
• In Ohio, a $54.3 million property-tax abatement for one site equated to $2.7 million per job created.
• Virginia reported losing $732 million in subsidy value in 2024.
• Texas projects over $1 billion in lost revenue by 2025 due to sales-tax exemptions for data centers.
• Some states (like Oklahoma) scaled back or eliminated such programs after realizing the limited return on investment.

WHY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS OFFER SUBSIDIES

Economic Development Promises

• • Companies promise hundreds of construction jobs and dozens of permanent jobs.

  • For rural or economically struggling areas, even modest job creation can be appealing.

Hope for Long-Term Tax Revenue

• • Local leaders expect that after the incentive period ends, data centers will contribute to the tax base.

Competitive Pressure

• • States and counties fear losing projects to neighboring jurisdictions willing to offer bigger incentives.

Political Benefits

• • Leaders can claim credit for attracting billion-dollar investments, even if the long-term net benefit is small.

THE CONTROVERSY: JOB CREATION VS. COST

• Data centers are capital-intensive but not labor-intensive.

• Typical hyperscale sites cost $1–$5 billion to build but employ only 30–150 permanent staff.

• Construction jobs are temporary and often bring in workers from outside the community.

• Many promised “indirect jobs” do not materialize at the scale projected.

• The result: public subsidies often far exceed the tangible local economic gains.

PATTERN OF INFLUENCE AND POWER IMBALANCE

• Wealthy Tech Firms: leverage their market power to demand concessions.

• Resource-Limited Local Governments: often lack the expertise to negotiate balanced deals.

• Site-Selection Competitions: create bidding wars that favor corporations over taxpayers.

• Political Incentives: short-term publicity for leaders contrasts with long-term fiscal strain on the community.

BIG-TECH’S INVESTMENT NARRATIVE

• Companies frame data centers as “the backbone of the AI revolution”.

• The argument: “Build the infrastructure now to dominate future AI services.”

• Promises of future trillions in economic value encourage investors and justify subsidies.

• Analysts note that near-term profits from AI services often fall far short of infrastructure costs.

RISKS OF HYPE-DRIVEN DEVELOPMENT

• High upfront capital spending by companies, partly offset by public subsidies.

• Speculative timelines for future AI breakthroughs and productivity gains.

• Uneven benefits: chipmakers, construction firms, and utilities often profit more than the communities hosting data centers.

• Public exposure to risk: subsidies shift the burden of failed expectations onto taxpayers.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• NDAs, while legitimate business tools, can erode public transparency when applied to projects involving taxpayer resources.

• Subsidies for data centers often fail to deliver proportional economic returns.

• The future-oriented narratives used to justify subsidies mirror patterns seen in past overhyped tech booms.

• Transparency, accountability mechanisms (like claw-back clauses), and vigilant watchdog oversight are essential to protect public interests.

• Reform efforts are gaining traction in some states to curb excessive subsidies and mandate public disclosure of economic-development deals.

Data Centers

Business Insider's "The True Cost of Data Centers" series explores the impacts — on water, power, pollution, and local economies — of Big Tech's race to dominate a future built on AI.

The AI boom has sparked a rush to build data center infrastructure across the US. By Business Insider's count, companies had filed permits to build 311 data centers nationwide as of 2010. By the end of 2024, that number had nearly quadrupled to 1,240.

These data centers are extremely resource-intensive; the largest can consume as much power as a city and up to several million gallons of water a day. Collectively, BI estimates, US data centers could soon consume more electricity than Poland, with a population of 36.6 million, used in 2023. Federal estimates expect data cennter power demand to as much as triple over the next three years.

This surging electricity demand is driving utilities to torpedo renewable energy goals and rely on fossil fuels, pushing data centers' air-pollution-related estimated public health costs to between $5.7 billion and $9.2 billion annually. Despite the centers' enormous water needs, tech companies have located 40% of them in areas with high water scarcity. Cities and states give away millions in tax breaks to build data centers, with relatively few full-time jobs promised in return — and locals are left living next to industrial complexes that operate 24/7.

Much of the public conversation today focuses on the promise of AI. Business Insider's "The True Cost of Data Centers" found that its impacts are already here.

Massive Incentive Packages

States offer billions in tax abatements (property, sales, and equipment taxes) to attract data centers.

Utility regulators often cut special electricity deals: bulk discounts, flat rates, and the ability to bypass peak-hour pricing that normal residents pay.

In some cases, water rights are prioritized for the centers, which is controversial in drought-prone regions.

Example: Virginia, Iowa, and Nebraska have given 20–30 year exemptions for tech firms building server farms.

Sales & Use Tax Exemptions

Most states normally collect sales tax on servers, networking gear, and cooling equipment — which are replaced every 3–5 years in a data center.

For big operators like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, or Meta, that adds up to hundreds of millions per site.

Many states have carved out 20–30 year exemptions so these companies don’t pay that tax at all.

Example: Virginia (Ashburn, Loudoun County — the world’s biggest data center hub) gives sales and use tax exemptions through July 1, 2035, with options for extension to 2040–2045.

Iowa and Nebraska have similar long-term exemptions tied to jobs/investment thresholds.

Property Tax Abatements

Local governments sometimes waive property taxes (which normally fund schools, roads, fire/police).

Deals can run 15–30 years, depending on the state, often justified as “economic development.”

Corporate Income Tax Credits

Some states let companies deduct a portion of data center investment from their income taxes, effectively shielding revenue for decades.

The Cost to Residents

A single hyperscale data center may save hundreds of millions over its lifetime in avoided taxes.

Meanwhile, residents’ property taxes and utility rates cover the gap — schools, infrastructure, and power grid expansions don’t stop needing funding.

Example — Virginia’s Data Center Alley Sales tax exemption on all IT gear until at least 2035 (likely extended).

On average, that’s $70–100 million per year in lost state/local revenue.

Virginia residents end up with higher electricity rates and overloaded grids while the tech firms pay reduced costs.

Shifting the Burden to Residents

Local governments still need money for schools, fire, police, water, and roads.

If data centers aren’t paying property or sales taxes, those costs are often passed on to residential property owners and small businesses.

Example: In Loudoun County, VA (the world’s largest data center hub), residents’ property taxes were kept stable for years thanks to rapid data center growth, but infrastructure costs have ballooned, and critics warn residents will eventually absorb the difference once exemptions expire or maintenance costs pile up.

Utility Bill Increases

Building substations, transmission lines, and cooling systems is expensive.

Data centers often get special bulk rates — meaning residents and small businesses pick up the slack through higher rates.

In Nebraska and Iowa, utilities have explicitly admitted that grid expansion costs are being socialized to the general customer base, while data centers enjoy discounted contracts.

Promises of “Economic Spin-Offs”

State leaders argue that:

Construction jobs (short-term)

A few hundred permanent jobs (long-term)

And secondary benefits (restaurants, housing demand, service companies) will generate enough extra tax base to offset the lost revenue.

The problem: a $1 billion hyperscale data center might employ only 30–50 permanent staff. That’s a very weak tax return compared to the subsidies.

Extending the Timeline

Some states plan for a long game: after the 20–30 year exemption ends, the data centers will finally pay full taxes.

But by then, most of the hardware will have been replaced multiple times, and companies often negotiate new deals or threaten to move expansion to another state.

Alternative Revenue Experiments

A few states are trying new approaches:

Electricity usage taxes (Wyoming proposed taxing each megawatt-hour consumed by data centers, since they use as much power as a mid-sized city).

Special service fees for water use or fire protection.

Community reinvestment funds, where companies donate to schools or infrastructure in lieu of taxes (voluntary, not binding).

But these are the exception — not the rule.

Why Data Centers Need So Much Water

Servers generate huge amounts of heat.

Most hyperscale data centers use evaporative cooling (giant chillers that spray water across coils).

A single large facility can consume 1–5 million gallons of water per day — roughly as much as a mid-sized city.

Where This Hits Hardest

Western states (Arizona, New Mexico, Utah) — already in drought — are hosting more and more centers.

Example: Google’s data centers in Arizona have drawn controversy for groundwater withdrawals.

Iowa and Nebraska — companies tap municipal water systems, and in some cases get priority access over farmers during shortages.

Oregon (The Dalles) — Google fought to keep its water consumption data secret from residents. In 2021, it was revealed the company was using over a quarter of the city’s entire water supply.

The Trade-Offs

States offer water rights as part of incentive packages.

Data centers often pay below-market rates for that water.

Farmers, residents, and small businesses end up with restrictions or higher water costs when supplies run tight.

Future Risks

Climate change is making drought cycles more extreme.

Data centers are being built in clusters — meaning dozens of water-intensive sites concentrated in one region.

In places like Northern Virginia (Loudoun County) and Des Moines, Iowa, local utilities warn of strain on aquifers and municipal treatment plants.

“Green” Solutions (on paper)

Companies promise:

Water recycling / gray water (using treated wastewater for cooling).

Dry cooling (uses more electricity, but less water).

AI load balancing to shift workloads to centers where water is abundant.

But in practice, many centers still rely heavily on freshwater withdrawals, because it’s cheap and reliable.

So you’re spot on: it’s not just the tax breaks and power subsidies — the water footprint is another hidden cost that residents absorb, while Silicon Valley skims the profits.

Regional Notes

Northern Virginia (Loudoun County – “Data Center Alley”)

Loudoun now has over 275 data centers, the densest cluster in the world.

Each new facility requires millions of gallons of water per day plus new substations and power lines.

The local water authority has warned of strain on aquifers and future treatment bottlenecks, especially in drought years.

But instead of setting hard caps on water use, Virginia keeps approving more centers. The “plan” is essentially: expand treatment plants and hope federal/state funding comes through.

Des Moines, Iowa (and broader Iowa/Nebraska corridor)

Iowa has lured in Meta, Microsoft, and Google with long-term tax exemptions and priority water rights.

Utilities openly admit that aquifers are under stress — particularly the Jordan Aquifer, which supplies much of central Iowa.

Warnings have been issued that withdrawals are unsustainable within 20–30 years, but instead of slowing growth, regulators are simply requiring companies to file usage reports.

There is no binding statewide plan to ration water between agriculture, residents, and data centers if shortages worsen.

The Pattern

Warnings: utility commissions, local water boards, and sometimes university hydrologists flag the risks.

Non-binding agreements: tech companies promise to “use recycled water” or “offset withdrawals.”

Reality: most still rely on municipal fresh water, because it’s cheaper, cleaner, and politically easier.

Public stuck: when shortages hit, residents and farmers face restrictions — while data centers often have guaranteed supply contracts.

Why No Plan?

State governments are hooked on the prestige and investment narrative of being a tech hub.

Silicon Valley firms negotiate hard — “If you don’t give us water and tax breaks, we’ll go to another state.”

Local leaders gamble that by the time real shortages hit, someone else will be in office.

So, to your point: yes, there are warnings, but no comprehensive water management plan. It’s very similar to what happened with fracking in the 2000s — warnings went unheeded until aquifers and towns were already stressed.

Federal Executive Order (July 23, 2025) — “Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure”

What the Executive Order Does

On July 23, 2025, the President signed an Executive Order titled "Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure." Its goal: fast-track federal approvals for massive AI data center projects and related infrastructure. Here's how it works:

• Defines “Qualifying Projects” — Data centers drawing 100 MW+ of new electricity load or with $500 million+ in investments, or those tied to national security—plus their infrastructure—are eligible. This includes energy systems, transmission lines, components like servers and semiconductors. White & Case LLP+7The White House+7Hunton Andrews Kurth+7Morgan Lewis+8The White House+8Allen Matkins+8

• Streamlines key environmental reviews — Cuts red tape under NEPA, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act. It calls for new categorical exclusions and programmatic consultations to avoid project-by-project environmental delays. The White House+6Hunton Andrews Kurth+6Cox Castle & Nicholson+6

• Expands federal land use — Opens up federal, brownfield, and Superfund lands for potential data center development, cutting states out of that siting equation. Gibson Dunn+10Hunton Andrews Kurth+10The White House+10

• Offers federal financial muscle — Through the Departments of Commerce, Energy, Interior, and Defense, the federal government is offering loans, grants, tax incentives, and offtake agreements for qualifying projects. If federal support is under 50% of project costs, they presume it's not a “major federal action,” which can further avoid NEPA review. The White House+7Hunton Andrews Kurth+7Cox Castle & Nicholson+7

Does This Override State Authority?

Not entirely—but it’s powerful leverage.

The Executive Order does not directly cancel state or local rules, especially for infrastructure passing through or built on non-federal land. Hunton Andrews Kurth+9Cox Castle & Nicholson+9Allen Matkins+9

What it does do is put heavy federal pressure on states. States with "burdensome" AI-related regulations risk losing federal support, which can be a huge loss. SLR Consultingseyfarth.com

The approach is to incentivize state compliance through carrots (funding, streamlined approvals), not necessarily force preemption by law.

Historically, federal preemption requires clear congressional authority—not just an executive direction. This situation falls short of that legal standard.

Bottom Line

Yes, the federal government is essentially guaranteeing and facilitating smoother data center buildouts through expedited federal permitting and support.

States still control water rights, zoning, certain environmental permits, and power infrastructure approvals—but the federal government is using financial incentives and faster timelines to erode state-level resistance.

This amounts to a soft override, relying on economic and regulatory leverage rather than judicial or legislative preemption.

Data Centers: Full Structured Overview What a Data Center Is

Definition: A data center is a specialized facility housing servers, storage, and networking gear that enables large-scale digital data processing and delivery.

Key Features:

Physical Infrastructure: Large warehouse-like buildings with rows of servers in racks, cable systems, and often multi-building campuses.

Supporting Systems:

• Cooling (chilled water, evaporative, or air-cooled systems)
• Redundant power (UPS, batteries, diesel backup generators)
• Fire suppression and advanced physical security
• High-speed network connections (fiber backbones, edge peering)

Purpose: The backbone for:

• Cloud services (AWS, Azure, Google Cloud)
• Streaming, social media, and gaming
• AI and ML workloads
• Enterprise IT systems
• Healthcare, government, and defense data storage

Drivers Behind the Data-Center Boom AI and Machine Learning

Large language models (e.g., GPT-4/5), generative AI, and deep learning require dense clusters of GPUs/accelerators.

These workloads need higher power density, advanced cooling (liquid or immersion), and often renewable power.

Cloud Computing Expansion

• Companies migrate from on-premises to cloud, requiring hyperscalers to keep expanding global capacity.

5G, Edge, and IoT

• Billions of devices (autonomous cars, sensors, smart appliances) generate data that must be processed close to where it’s produced to minimize latency.

Streaming, Gaming, and Social Media

• Platforms like Netflix, YouTube, Twitch, and MMO games depend on fast, stable global delivery of huge amounts of content.

Data Privacy and Sovereignty

• Laws such as the EU’s GDPR, India’s data-localization rules, and others require citizen data to be stored and processed domestically.

Sustainability and Energy Strategy

• New builds emphasize:

• High efficiency
• Renewable energy sourcing
• Hyperscale campuses near hydro, wind, or solar power

Key Insight: The AI surge plus global cloud adoption has made compute capacity a strategic resource.

Economic Drivers Demand Growth

• AI, cloud, and streaming services expanding worldwide

• Frontier AI has created a “compute arms race” among major tech firms

Incentives for Development

• Governments compete by offering:

  • Tax abatements and credits

  • Subsidized land and utilities

  • Infrastructure (roads, power lines, water treatment)

Data Localization Requirements

• Nations mandate local storage/processing, forcing global cloud firms to build in-country.

Geopolitical Competition

• Compute infrastructure is seen as a national asset; many countries invest directly or offer favorable policies to attract facilities.

Policy Enablers

• Tax incentives: property-tax abatements, multi-decade sales-tax exemptions on servers, equipment, and electricity

• Permitting reforms: streamlined approvals, “data-center-ready” industrial parks with pre-built utilities

• Public-private partnerships: joint investment in grid capacity, renewable energy projects, and transmission lines

The Tax and Equity Debate Historical Profit Shifting

• Tech giants historically routed profits through low-tax jurisdictions (e.g., “Double Irish with Dutch sandwich” using Ireland → Netherlands → Bermuda).

• Data-center hardware is local, but cloud/AI service revenue can still be booked elsewhere.

Local vs. Global Revenue

• Communities host the facilities and bear infrastructure burdens but often see little corporate tax revenue.

Reforms and Pushback

• OECD’s 15% global minimum tax (phased in since 2021) aims to close loopholes.

• Local residents increasingly object to long-term tax holidays for resource-intensive projects.

Stakeholders: Winners and Burden-Bearers Main Beneficiaries

• Cloud/AI companies: gain capacity, favorable power rates, and long-term tax savings

• Landowners and contractors: benefit during land sales and construction

• Some counties: e.g., Loudoun County (VA), which collects substantial property-tax revenue from server/equipment

Often Bearing Costs

• Residents: higher utility rates, limited job creation, water/land-use impacts, traffic, noise

• Public resources: heavy power and water draw, need for grid upgrades

• Environment: potential strain on local aquifers, carbon emissions from backup diesel generators

Energy and Water Implications

• Power Use: A single hyperscale facility may draw 100–300 MW; clusters can rival a mid-sized state’s industrial demand.

• Water Use: Evaporative cooling consumes 1–5 million gallons/day in many sites; often concentrated in water-stressed regions.

• Mitigations: recycled/greywater, dry cooling (less water but higher electricity), AI-based workload shifting, renewable sourcing.

Siting Patterns

Selection Criteria:

• Affordable land and favorable taxes
• Abundant, preferably renewable, power
• Robust fiber-optic connectivity
• Permissive permitting regimes
• Cool/dry climates in some regions to reduce cooling costs

Common Locations:

• U.S.: Northern Virginia; Iowa/Nebraska/Ohio; Oregon/Utah/Arizona; Texas/New Mexico; Indiana/Illinois/Georgia/North Carolina

• Global: Ireland; Nordics; Singapore; UAE; Brazil; Chile; India; Eastern Europe (Lithuania, Belarus, Uzbekistan)

Incentive Landscape Countries

• High Generosity: Brazil (ReData), Singapore (15-year tax holidays plus green grants), UAE (free-zone exemptions), Uzbekistan/Lithuania (broad tax breaks)

• Reassessing / Scaling Back: Sweden (ended electricity tax discounts), Finland (rolling back subsidies), Ireland (moratoria and energy-efficiency requirements)

• Policy-Driven: India (localization-driven), China (subsidies tied to domestic suppliers)

U.S. States

• High-Incentive Hubs: Virginia, Texas, Indiana, Illinois, Georgia, New Mexico

• Tools: 20- to 30-year sales-tax exemptions on IT gear/electricity, property-tax abatements, job credits, subsidized utilities

• Emerging Guardrails: clawbacks, stricter environmental review, community-benefit agreements

Transparency and Community Influence

Standard Corporate Playbook:

• NDAs and project code names

• Terms negotiated privately before public is informed

• Short public-comment windows once most approvals are set

When Communities Gained Leverage:

• Prince William County, VA: rezoning opposition slowed expansion

• The Dalles, Oregon: investigative reporting revealed Google’s water use, leading to stricter rules

• Singapore: paused approvals, then implemented open sustainability-driven application process

• British Columbia (Squamish Nation): negotiated CBA including local hiring, energy/water improvements, and revenue-sharing

Federal Direction (U.S., 2025)

Executive Order (July 2025):

• Fast-tracks permitting for 100+ MW or $500M+ projects

• Expands use of federal/brownfield lands

• Offers federal loans, grants, tax incentives

• Eases some NEPA and Clean Air/Water reviews

Effect: States still control water, zoning, and power-grid approvals, but federal incentives put pressure on them to expedite.Case Studies

Loudoun County, VA:

• • World’s largest cluster; strong commercial tax base from server/equipment

  • Concerns over grid strain, new transmission lines, land-use conflicts

Project Jupiter, New Mexico (2025):

• • $16.5B hyperscale campus

  • Decades-long abatements and public-funded infrastructure

  • Few hundred permanent jobs, significant water-stress concerns

Ireland:

• • Major European hub with historically low corporate tax

  • Data centers consume ≈20% of national grid

  • Recent moratoria and stricter renewable-capacity requirements

Kerr County, Texas (Battery Storage Parallel):

• • Community opposition citing fire risk, rural character, lack of jobs

  • Project stalled after local resistance and denied abatements

Emerging Policy Trends

• Shorter abatement periods (5–10 years vs. 20–30)

• Clawback clauses tied to job/investment targets

• Community-benefit agreements for local infrastructure, housing, renewable projects

• Sustainability requirements for energy and water use

• Gradual global move toward fairer profit taxation (OECD minimum)

Bottom Lines

• Functionally: Data centers underpin modern cloud, AI, and digital services.

• Economically: Expansion is driven by global demand; localities compete for projects.

• Civically: Without well-designed tax and benefit-sharing structures, communities may pay the costs in infrastructure and utilities while most profits leave the region.

• Policy Trend: Growing focus on transparency, shorter tax holidays, sustainability, and community benefits to rebalance the equation.

Current Reality

• Fast-track momentum: The Executive Order’s whole purpose is to speed up permitting, so it does create a “full-steam-ahead” dynamic. Developers now know they have federal support and will face fewer procedural delays.

• Limited public leverage: Because these projects often involve private-public partnerships and sometimes nondisclosure agreements (NDAs), local residents may have little insight into the details of energy and water use or the terms of tax incentives. Environmental review exemptions make it harder for communities to demand detailed impact studies.

Concerns on the Ground

• Noise, traffic, and industrialization: Residents near new or proposed sites have already complained about constant hum from cooling equipment, heavy truck traffic during construction, and round-the-clock lighting.

• Property values: There is evidence from similar large-scale industrial projects (like logistics hubs or crypto-mining operations) that property near these facilities can lose value because of perceived pollution, noise, or loss of rural character.

• Water and power limits: Right now, there is no federally mandated cap on how much power or water an individual data center can draw. The “limits” depend on what local utilities and water districts can negotiate. In regions desperate for economic development, those authorities often agree to very generous terms.

Why Accountability Is Hard

• Job-creation promises: These projects are often marketed as bringing hundreds of jobs, but many of those jobs are temporary construction jobs. Once a data center is operating, it usually employs only a few dozen permanent workers. That gap between promised benefits and actual ongoing local jobs is one of the main criticisms.

• Information barriers: Utilities and developers sometimes classify their contracts and resource-use data as confidential business information, making it harder for local residents and journalists to evaluate claims.

Why It Feels Like “Full Steam Ahead”

• NDAs & secrecy Many data center deals are struck under non-disclosure agreements between tech companies and local utilities or governments. That means details about how much power and water will be used (or who pays for upgrades) are often hidden from the public until construction is well underway.

• Jobs as the selling point Data centers are frequently pitched as “job creators,” but the reality is that they employ very few long-term staff (sometimes fewer than 50 workers for billion-dollar facilities). The construction jobs are temporary, and once built, the centers are highly automated. This makes the “economic development” argument misleading compared to the lasting environmental and infrastructure impacts.

• Lack of power & water caps Because of the speed of permitting and the emphasis on national competitiveness, there are no firm ceilings on how much power or water these facilities can consume. Utilities, under pressure, often prioritize large industrial customers over local ratepayers, leaving households vulnerable to higher bills and possible shortages.

Costs to Communities

• Noise & vibration from industrial cooling fans and backup generators.

• Property devaluation when land is rezoned for industrial use or when the local environment (air, water, tranquility) deteriorates.

• Environmental trade-offs as data centers secure preferential rates for water or energy while residents face restrictions (such as watering bans or time-of-day energy use penalties).

• Stress & uncertainty from knowing that infrastructure projects (like new high-voltage lines or substations) may cut across private property.

Why Pushback Is Difficult

• Federal leverage: The new Executive Order ties federal funding and approvals to compliance, making state and local governments hesitant to resist.

• Fragmented opposition: Affected communities are scattered, while tech firms and federal agencies coordinate on a national scale.

• Regulatory shortcuts: With streamlined reviews and categorical exclusions, there’s less opportunity for public hearings or environmental impact debates.

In short: You’re right that “jobs” are used as the public rationale, but the real outcomes are often hidden costs—noise, stress, water shortages, higher bills, and lost property value—borne by regular people who have the least leverage in these negotiations.

Jobs Claims vs. Reality

• Short-term vs. long-term: • Construction jobs come first, but they usually last only 12–18 months. • After that, a typical hyperscale data center might employ 30–80 full-time staff. For a multi-billion-dollar facility, that’s a very small workforce compared to, say, a factory.

• Mostly specialized technical roles: These jobs often require skills in network engineering, cybersecurity, high-voltage electrical systems, and data-center operations. In many rural or semi-rural communities where data centers are sited, the local labor pool does not have enough people with those skills.

• Imported talent: Companies often relocate experienced engineers and technicians or contract outside firms. That means many of the high-paying positions go to people from elsewhere, not to the local population.

• Indirect job benefits are overstated: Supporters sometimes cite “indirect” or “induced” jobs (like restaurants or suppliers), but these multipliers are often inflated in promotional studies and can decline quickly once construction ends.

The “Jobs” Narrative as a Selling Tool

• Promoters know that promising jobs wins local political support and helps push projects through zoning boards and public hearings.

• The headline number—“hundreds of jobs created”—is often quoted without separating temporary construction jobs from the permanent operating staff.

• Communities sometimes offer big tax breaks on the assumption that the long-term job base will justify it. When that doesn’t materialize, the local tax base shrinks instead of growing.

Bottom Line

You’re right: the “jobs” message is often presented in a way that suggests a broad local benefit, when in fact most of the permanent positions are specialized and often filled by outside hires. This mismatch between promise and reality is a frequent point of criticism from community groups, labor advocates, and some local officials.

The “Stranger in Town” Problem

• Company staff as outsiders: When the permanent jobs are mostly imported specialists, they may rent short-term housing and have little connection to the local culture or history.

• Community resentment: Residents can come to see these workers and their employers as the face of the disruption — even though the workers themselves didn’t design the policy.

• Fraying trust: When locals feel that they were promised jobs or prosperity and instead see higher bills, loss of farmland, noise, or water restrictions, the relationship can sour quickly.

Social and Emotional Costs

• Loss of place: Rural and semi-rural areas often prize open land, dark skies, quiet nights, and a slower pace. High-voltage lines, 24-hour cooling towers, or acres of identical windowless buildings can feel like the loss of a way of life.

• Feeling “tricked” or ignored: When details were hidden under NDAs or announced late, people often feel they were denied the chance to weigh in or defend their community.

• Displacement anxiety: Even if homes aren’t seized, the fear that property values will drop or that taxes and water use will rise can lead to real stress and a sense of betrayal.

Lessons from Past Projects

• Case studies show that resentment tends to build where:

  • Communication was poor or one-sided.

  • The gap between promised jobs/revenue and the actual outcome became obvious.

  • Environmental or lifestyle changes (noise, dust, water restrictions) were not anticipated.

In some of the Virginia and Arizona communities, these dynamics have already led to lawsuits, protests, or local election shake-ups.

Bottom Line

You’re right that this isn’t just a numbers issue. The emotional and cultural costs — feeling that land, water, and the character of a town were bargained away — can’t be priced or offset by a few specialized jobs. This is why more community advocates are calling for early transparency, enforceable agreements, and local hiring targets before projects get approved.

In several places where new data-center proposals have become controversial, local opponents have pushed for earlier disclosure and in some cases for written local-hiring or community-benefit commitments — but this is far from universal, and many projects still proceed without such safeguards.

Why NDAs Create a Powder Keg

• Information vacuum: NDAs mean even local elected officials sometimes can’t explain what’s happening — power demand, water use, traffic, noise.

• Rumors fill the gap: When residents don’t get straight answers, stories circulate, and mistrust grows.

• Loss of agency: People feel the deal was “fixed” before they had any chance to voice concerns or bargain for protections.

The Turn to Anger and Blame

• Officials as targets: Once the impacts show up (higher rates, noise, land-use change), residents often blame local leaders for “selling them out.”

• Workers as visible symbols: Employees who move in with the company sometimes become the face of the change, even though they had no part in the original decision.

• “Mad as hornets” response: That mix of feeling tricked and powerless can lead to sharp hostility — protests, lawsuits, political turnover, even personal harassment.

Lessons from Past Energy & Infrastructure Projects

This dynamic isn’t unique to data centers:

• Pipeline fights, wind farms, and power-line corridors have all produced similar waves of anger when locals learned that key siting or compensation decisions were locked in early.

• Once that trust is lost, it’s rarely repaired by later promises of jobs or tax revenue.

Bottom Line

Your intuition is grounded in what has happened elsewhere:

• Secrecy → perception of a “fix” → loss of trust → intense backlash.

• The social damage can linger long after the project is built — and can make the lives of both community leaders and company staff very difficult.

Losses That Feel Irreversible

• Peace and quiet: Continuous cooling-fan hum, diesel backup generators, and high-voltage equipment can change the character of a quiet town or farming area.

• Night skies and lights: Security lighting and substation glare can affect wildlife and residents’ sense of place.

• Home value and sense of refuge: Even if property isn’t seized, the shift from a rural setting to an industrial one often lowers resale value and makes people feel they’ve “lost their home” in an emotional sense.

The NDA Factor

• Secrecy before siting decisions: Communities often find out about the scale of power, water, or land use only after deals are signed.

• Erodes trust in leadership: Residents who feel they weren’t told the truth commonly blame local leaders as well as the company.

• Makes later explanations ring hollow: Even if the company or officials try to provide data later, people assume the most important choices were made behind closed doors.

Community Conflict

• Neighbors vs. neighbors: Some landowners benefit (for example, by selling land or signing easements), while others feel they’ve lost their way of life.

• Officials under fire: Local leaders who approved tax breaks or rezoning sometimes face recall campaigns or lose reelection.

• Workers caught in the middle: Company employees who relocate can become lightning rods for resentment despite having no say in the original bargain.

Takeaway

Once the perceived betrayal is public, it is indeed very hard to defend decisions that traded away community peace and environmental quality for limited jobs and revenue. This pattern — secrecy followed by visible impacts — has been one of the main drivers of intense backlash in places that became “data-center hubs.”

There is growing evidence that tech investors and infrastructure firms are planning to scale up data center buildouts globally, and to push big power and digital infrastructure investments in many places.

Here’s what the public signals and forecasts tell us — plus what to watch out for.

What the tech/finance side is signaling

• Investor intent is strong In CBRE’s 2025 Global Data Center Investor Intentions Survey, most data-center investors expect to increase their investments in the sector this year. CBRE In fact, many now expect data centers to make up a larger share of their real estate asset portfolios over the next few years. CBRE

• Rapid growth forecasts

  • The global data center market is projected to grow at ~15% annual growth (CAGR) through 2027 JLL+3Inside HPC & AI News+3JLL+3

  • Some industry reports project even more aggressive growth: demand for data center capacity could almost triple by 2030, driven especially by AI workloads (~70% of new demand) McKinsey & Company

  • Goldman Sachs forecasts global power demand from data centers could increase 165% by decade’s end (vs 2023) Goldman Sachs

  • Knight Frank expects the global data center market to hit $4 trillion by 2030, with capital expenditures of hundreds of billions in the coming years. Knight Frank

• Major new flagship projects Big names are already announcing massive schemes:

  • The Stargate project (OpenAI + Oracle + SoftBank) aims to deploy tens of gigawatts’ worth of AI-data-center capacity across dozens of sites. Construction Dive+3Reuters+3AP News+3

  • Microsoft is investing ~$80 billion in the coming year toward AI-optimized data center infrastructure. Reuters

  • In the U.S., tech giants have signaled $500 billion in new data center investment in coming years under initiatives like Stargate. Construction Dive

• Active investor groups

  • Private-equity and infrastructure funds are pouring capital into digital infrastructure, often treating data centers more like utility assets (steady cash flow, long leases). PitchBook+1

  • Firms like DigitalBridge, Silver Lake, and Blue Owl are among those leading major investments in hyperscale campuses. PitchBook

What this implies — and the risks that come with it

If the expansion they’re pitching actually takes place, then yes — we’ll see many more data centers in more places, pushing power, water, land, and infrastructure to their limits. But it’s not guaranteed to succeed everywhere, for several reasons:

• Power & transmission constraints Even in places with abundant energy, getting permission and building high-voltage lines and substations can take years. The “time-to-connect” for many new data center sites is a major chokepoint. JLL+2JLL+2

• Supply bottlenecks Equipment (transformers, cooling systems, high-end switchgear) and building materials are in high demand, which slows rollouts. JLL+1

• Regulatory & environmental pushback As projects are proposed, local resistance, utility limits, water shortages, permitting delays, and political risk will often bite — especially in areas that are already stressed. JLL+2JLL+2

• Demand risk & overbuild Many projects are pre-leased (i.e. already under contract) to big tech companies, which reduces risk. Moody's+1 But if growth slows or technology evolves (e.g. more compute on edge or more efficient chips), some of this capacity could end up underutilized.

• Resource stress: water, land, emissions In many places, water supply, land availability, and carbon emissions constraints will become binding limits.