As electric bills rise, evidence mounts that data centers share blame

Data Talk

Energy hungry data centers are increasing electric costs. Getty Images

Amid rising electric bills, states are under pressure to insulate regular household and business ratepayers from the costs of feeding Big Tech's energy-hungry data centers.

It's not clear that any state has a solution and the actual effect of data centers on electricity bills is difficult to pin down. Some critics question whether states have the spine to take a hard line against tech behemoths like Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Meta.

But more than a dozen states have begun taking steps as data centers drive a rapid build-out of power plants and transmission lines.

That has meant pressuring the nation's biggest power grid operator to clamp down on price increases, studying the effect of data centers on electricity bills or pushing data center owners to pay a larger share of local transmission costs.

Rising power bills are “something legislators have been hearing a lot about. It’s something we’ve been hearing a lot about. More people are speaking out at the public utility commission in the past year than I’ve ever seen before,” said Charlotte Shuff of the Oregon Citizens’ Utility Board, a consumer advocacy group. “There’s a massive outcry.”

Not the typical electric customer

Some data centers could require more electricity than cities the size of Pittsburgh, Cleveland or New Orleans, and make huge factories look tiny by comparison. That's pushing policymakers to rethink a system that, historically, has spread transmission costs among classes of consumers that are proportional to electricity use.

“A lot of this infrastructure, billions of dollars of it, is being built just for a few customers and a few facilities and these happen to be the wealthiest companies in the world,” said Ari Peskoe, who directs the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard University. “I think some of the fundamental assumptions behind all this just kind of breaks down.”

A fix, Peskoe said, is a “can of worms" that pits ratepayer classes against one another.

Some officials downplay the role of data centers in pushing up electric bills.

Tricia Pridemore, who sits on Georgia’s Public Service Commission and is president of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, pointed to an already tightened electricity supply and increasing costs for power lines, utility poles, transformers and generators as utilities replace aging equipment or harden it against extreme weather.

The data centers needed to accommodate the artificial intelligence boom are still in the regulatory planning stages, Pridemore said, and the Data Center Coalition, which represents Big Tech firms and data center developers, has said its members are committed to paying their fair share.

But growing evidence suggests that the electricity bills of some Americans are rising to subsidize the massive energy needs of Big Tech as the U.S. competes in a race against China for artificial intelligence superiority.

Data and analytics firm Wood Mackenzie published a report in recent weeks that suggested 20 proposed or effective specialized rates for data centers in 16 states it studied aren’t nearly enough to cover the cost of a new natural gas power plant.

In other words, unless utilities negotiate higher specialized rates, other ratepayer classes — residential, commercial and industrial — are likely paying for data center power needs.

Meanwhile, Monitoring Analytics, the independent market watchdog for the mid-Atlantic grid, produced research in June showing that 70% — or $9.3 billion — of last year's increased electricity cost was the result of data center demand.

States are responding

Last year, five governors led by Pennsylvania's Josh Shapiro began pushing back against power prices set by the mid-Atlantic grid operator, PJM Interconnection, after that amount spiked nearly sevenfold. They warned of customers “paying billions more than is necessary.”

PJM has yet to propose ways to guarantee that data centers pay their freight, but Monitoring Analytics is floating the idea that data centers should be required to procure their own power.

In a filing last month, it said that would avoid a "massive wealth transfer” from average people to tech companies.

At least a dozen states are eyeing ways to make data centers pay higher local transmission costs.

In Oregon, a data center hot spot, lawmakers passed legislation in June ordering state utility regulators to develop new — presumably higher — power rates for data centers.

The Oregon Citizens’ Utility Board says there is clear evidence that costs to serve data centers are being spread across all customers — at a time when some electric bills there are up 50% over the past four years and utilities are disconnecting more people than ever.

New Jersey’s governor signed legislation last month commissioning state utility regulators to study whether ratepayers are being hit with “unreasonable rate increases” to connect data centers and to develop a specialized rate to charge data centers.

In some other states, like Texas and Utah, governors and lawmakers are trying to avoid a supply-and-demand crisis that leaves ratepayers on the hook — or in the dark.

Doubts about states protecting ratepayers

In Indiana, state utility regulators approved a settlement between Indiana Michigan Power Co., Amazon, Google, Microsoft and consumer advocates that set parameters for data center payments for service.

Kerwin Olsen, of the Citizens Action Council of Indiana, a consumer advocacy group, signed the settlement and called it a “pretty good deal” that contained more consumer protections than what state lawmakers passed.

But, he said, state law doesn't force large power users like data centers to publicly reveal their electric usage, so pinning down whether they're paying their fair share of transmission costs "will be a challenge.”

In a March report, the Environmental and Energy Law Program at Harvard University questioned the motivation of utilities and regulators to shield ratepayers from footing the cost of electricity for data centers.

Both utilities and states have incentives to attract big customers like data centers, it said.

To do it, utilities — which must get their rates approved by regulators — can offer “special deals to favored customers” like a data center and effectively shift the costs of those discounts to regular ratepayers, the authors wrote. Many state laws can shield disclosure of those rates, they said.

In Pennsylvania, an emerging data center hot spot, the state utility commission is drafting a model rate structure for utilities to consider adopting. An overarching goal is to get data center developers to put their money where their mouth is.

“We’re talking about real transmission upgrades, potentially hundreds of millions of dollars,” commission chairman Stephen DeFrank said. “And that’s what you don’t want the ratepayer to get stuck paying for."

From Your Site Articles

A new report shows that Texas has about 16 public charging stations per 1,000 EVs. Photo by Kindel Media/Pexels

Texas among top states for EV charging access, report shows

by the numbers

A new study from FinanceBuzz reports that Texas has the fifth most public electric vehicle charging stations among states in the U.S.

In its Electric Vehicle (EV) Statistics [2025]: Trends in Sales, Savings, and More report, FinanceBuzz, a personal finance and investment adviser, compiled electric vehicle data to find sales trends, adoption rates, charging infrastructure, costs, savings and more.

Texas has a total of 3,709 public EV charging stations, which equals about 16 stations per 1,000 EVs, according to the report. The remaining top five included:

No. 1 California with 17,122 EV charging stations
No. 2 New York with 4,814 EV charging stations
No.3 Massachusetts with 3,738 EV charging stations
No. 4 Florida with 3,715 EV charging stations

Los Angeles had the most public charging stations at 1,609 among U.S. cities. Austin was Texas’s top city with 656 stations.

The study also looked at how much Americans are spending on transportation, and found that the average American using a gas vehicle spends $1,865 annually on fuel. FinanceBuzz found that electric vehicle owners would pay 65 percent less on energy costs. Calculations were based on driving 14,489 miles annually, which measures to 37.9 miles per day. The full report sourced data from the International Energy Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Transportation, AAA, the U.S. Energy Information Administration and other organizations.

The report said Americans purchased over 1.5 million EVs in 2024, which equals approximately 10 percent of all new light-duty vehicles sold, citing information from the International Council on Clean Transportation.

While Tesla remains the most popular make, 24 new EV models were launched in 2024 by other companies, which represents a 15 percent increase from the previous year.

Other trends in the report included:

The U.S. now has more than 64,000 public charging stations and over 168,000 charging ports, which is up from fewer than 1,000 stations in 2010.
An average EV owner will spend about $654 per year on electricity, compared to $1,865 for a gas-powered vehicle. The savings equate to about $1,211 per year.
In 2024, U.S. EV sales surpassed 1.5 million, but the pace slowed compared to the previous year, with a 10 percent increase versus 40 percent in 2023.
Insuring an EV can be more costly because parts are harder to come by, making repairs and replacements more expensive.
In the second quarter of 2024, nearly half of new EVs were leased, which is a 28 percentage point increase since 2021.

A new report from the Department of Energy says the risk of power blackouts will be 100 times greater in 2030. Photo via Getty Images.

DOE report warns of widespread power blackouts by 2030 amid grid challenges

grid report

Scheduled retirements of traditional power plants, dependence on energy sources like wind and solar, and the growth of energy-gobbling data centers put the U.S. — including Texas — at much greater risk of massive power outages just five years from now, a new U.S. Department of Energy report suggests.

The report says the U.S. power grid won’t be able to sustain the combined impact of plant closures, heavy reliance on renewable energy, and the boom in data center construction. As a result, the risk of power blackouts will be 100 times greater in 2030, according to the report.

“The status quo of more [plant] retirements and less dependable replacement generation is neither consistent with winning the AI race and ensuring affordable energy for all Americans, nor with continued grid reliability … . Absent intervention, it is impossible for the nation’s bulk power system to meet the AI growth requirements while maintaining a reliable power grid and keeping energy costs low for our citizens,” the report says.

Avoiding planned shutdowns of traditional energy plants, such as those fueled by coal and oil, would improve grid reliability, but a shortfall would still persist in the territory served by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), particularly during the winter, the report says. ERCOT operates the power grid for the bulk of Texas.

According to the report, 104 gigawatts of U.S. power capacity from traditional plants is set to be phased out by 2030. “This capacity is not being replaced on a one-to-one basis,” says the report, “and losing this generation could lead to significant outages when weather conditions do not accommodate wind and solar generation.”

To meet reliability targets, ERCOT would need 10,500 megawatts of additional “perfect” capacity by 2030, the report says. Perfect capacity refers to maximum power output under ideal conditions.

“ERCOT continues to undergo rapid change, and supply additions will have a difficult time keeping up with demand growth,” Brent Nelson, managing director of markets and strategy at Ascend Analytics, a provider of data and analytics for the energy sector, said in a release earlier this summer. “With scarcity conditions ongoing and weather-dependent, expect a volatile market with boom years and bust years.”

Texas's evolving energy landscape means affordability for residents, a new report finds. Photo via Pexels

Here's how Texas ranks when it comes to energy affordability

$$$

The Lone Star State is an economical option when it comes to energy costs, one report has found.

WalletHub, a personal finance website, analyzed energy affordability across the 50 states in its new report, Energy Costs by State in 2024, which looked at residential energy types: electricity, natural gas, motor fuel and home heating oil.

Texas ranked as the fourth cheapest state for energy, or No. 47 in the report that sorted by most expensive average monthly energy bill. Texans' average energy cost per month is $437, the report found.

Source: WalletHub

Here's how Texas ranked in key categories, with No. 1 being the most expensive and No. 50 being the cheapest:

No. 27 – price of electricity
No. 15 – price of natural gas
No. 44 – natural-gas consumption per consumer
No. 40 – price of motor fuel
No. 16 – motor-fuel consumption per driver
No. 49 – home heating-oil consumption per consumer

With the most expensive state — Wyoming — being over four times the cost compared to the cheapest state — New Mexico, the difference between energy costs between states varies greatly, but the reason for that isn't exactly a mystery.

“Energy prices vary from state to state based on several factors including energy sources, supply and demand, energy regulation, regulatory authorities, competition, and the free market," explains expert Justin Perryman, a professor at Washington University School of Law. "[States] such as Texas have a deregulated electricity marketplace. Missouri and 17 other states have a regulated energy market. In deregulated markets there are typically more energy providers which often leads to more competition and lower prices; however, other factors can contribute to energy prices.

"In regulated markets, the state energy regulatory authority sets the prices of energy," he continues. "It can be politically unpopular to raise energy costs, so those states may benefit from lower energy costs. Factors such as the state’s commitment to renewable energy may also factor into energy costs. Proximity to less expensive energy sources can lower energy costs.”

Texas's evolving energy landscape has been well documented, and earlier this year the state's solar energy generation surpassed the output by coal, according to a report from the Institute For Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

A separate report found that, when compared to other states, Texas will account for the biggest share of new utility-scale solar capacity and new battery storage capacity in 2024. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the state will make up 35 percent of new utility-scale solar capacity in the U.S. this year.

The politicians point to a recent Texas merger. Photo via Getty Images

Politicians urge Justice Department to prosecute alleged collusion, price-fixing by oil industry

call for action

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and 22 other Democratic senators are calling on the Department of Justice to “use every tool” at its disposal to prevent and prosecute alleged collusion and price-fixing in the oil industry.

In a letter Thursday to Attorney General Merrick Garland and other officials, the Democrats said a recent Federal Trade Commission investigation into a high-profile merger uncovered evidence of price-fixing by oil executives that led to higher energy costs for American families and businesses.

The FTC said earlier this month that Scott Sheffield, the former CEO of Texas-based Pioneer Natural Resources, colluded with OPEC and OPEC+ to potentially raise crude oil prices. Sheffield retired from the company in 2016 but returned as CEO in 2019. After retiring again in 2023, he continued to serve on its board.

The FTC cleared Houston-based ExxonMobil's $60 billion deal to buy Pioneer on May 2 but barred Sheffield from joining the new company’s board of directors. Pioneer, which is based in Dallas, said it disagreed with the allegations but would not impede closing of the merger, which was announced in 2023.

In a report, the FTC said collusion by Pioneer and others may have cost the average American household up to $500 per car in increased annual fuel costs, an amount Democrats called “an unwelcome tax that is particularly burdensome for lower-income families.'' Meanwhile, Exxon Mobil and other major oil companies collectively earned more than $300 billion in profits over the last two years, "a surge that many market experts believe cannot be explained away by increased production costs from the (coronavirus) pandemic or inflation,” Democrats said.

The letter calls for the Justice Department to launch an industry-wide investigation into possible violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. It outlined how “Big Oil’s alleged collusion with OPEC is a national security concern that aids countries looking to undermine the U.S.," including Russia and Iran.

“Corporate malfeasance must be confronted, or it will proliferate," the letter said. “These alleged offenses do not simply enrich corporations; hardworking Americans end up paying the price through higher costs for gas, fuel and related consumer products. The DOJ must protect consumers, small businesses and the public from petroleum-market collusion."

The letter by Senate Democrats was the latest in a series of partisan actions targeting the oil industry.

Separately, Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland have formally asked the Justice Department to investigate whether Exxon, Chevron and other oil companies misled the public over decades about the climate effects of burning fossil fuels. Whitehouse and Raskin led a multiyear investigation that uncovered what they described as “damning new documents that exposed the fossil fuel industry’s ongoing efforts to deceive the public and block climate action.”

Republicans, meanwhile, have attacked President Joe Biden's energy policies, including a freeze on liquefied natural gas exports, restrictions on new oil and gas leasing on a petroleum reserve in Alaska and a decision to charge companies higher rates to drill for oil and natural gas on federal lands.

Sen. John Barrasso, the top Republican on the Senate Energy Committee, said the Democratic president was “doing all he can to make it economically impossible to produce energy on federal lands.''

The letter released Thursday was signed by 23 Democrats, including Schumer, Whitehouse, Senate Commerce Committee Chairwoman Maria Cantwell of Washington state and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin of Illinois.

If you live in Texas, you're paying less than residents in almost every other state. Photo via Getty Images

Report ranks Texas as among least expensive states for energy

cha-ching

A new report analyzed energy costs across the United States to find out what states had the highest energy prices. Turns out, Texas falls rather low on that list.

The study from WalletHub ranked Texas as No. 49 on the list of the 2023 Most Energy-Expensive States. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, almost a third (27 percent) of the country report having difficulty meeting the energy needs of their household.

"To better understand the impact of energy on our finances relative to our location and consumption habits, WalletHub compared the total monthly energy bills in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia," reads the report. "Our analysis uses a special formula that accounts for the following residential energy types: electricity, natural gas, motor fuel and home heating oil."

The report ranked states based on their total monthly energy cost, but also identified the following:

Monthly electricity cost
Monthly natural-gas cost
Monthly motor-fuel cost
Monthly home heating-oil cost

Texas households' total monthly energy cost was reportedly $378, which is only beat by New Mexico ($373) and DC ($274). The top five most expensive states for monthly energy cost is as follows.

Wyoming at $845
North Dakota at $645
Alaska at $613
Connecticut at $593
Massachusetts at $589

When comparing to other states, Texas monthly electricity costs are relatively high. At $153 a month, the Lone Star State ranks No. 11 in that category. Meanwhile, when it comes to monthly home heating-oil cost, Texans pay an average of $0 a month, as do Mississippi residents.

Fuel prices are also cheaper in Texas, as the state ranks No. 49 with only Louisiana and Mississippi with lower costs, respectively.

While Texans can find some comfort in the lower-than-average energy costs, the whole country is expected to see some prices increase, one of the report's experts says.

"Most likely, energy prices will continue to rise in 2023, although perhaps more slowly than at times in the past," writes Peter C. Burns, director of the Center for Sustainable Energy at Notre Dame. "The war in Ukraine continues to create uncertainty in energy supplies in Europe, while pledges to reduce oil production in the interests of reducing greenhouse gas emissions will also contribute to increasing prices."

Source: WalletHub

Ad Placement 300x100

Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

Houston companies advance 200MW green ammonia plant in South Texas

coming soon

Two global companies with a major presence in Houston are teaming up on a green ammonia plant in Port of Victoria, Texas.

Topsoe, a Danish company with operations in Houston and Bayport, Texas, has been tapped to provide ammonia synthesis technology for the project being developed by First Ammonia, a New York-based company with offices in Houston and Denmark.

The flagship 200-megawatt plant will use renewable electricity to produce green hydrogen through electrolysis, which will then be combined with nitrogen from a nearby Air Liquide pipeline to make green ammonia, according to First Ammonia. It is expected to serve both U.S. and global markets.

According to First Ammonia, every 100,000 tons of electric ammonia produced avoids approximately 240,000 tons of CO2 emissions compared to fossil ammonia

The Topsoe technology used on site is designed to be able to increase production from 10 percent to 100 percent within 30 minutes, and decrease production at a similar rate, allowing the plant to respond to fluctuations from solar- or wind-based energy sources.

“Topsoe is the world leader in ammonia synthesis, and First Ammonia is delighted to continue our partnership with them in establishing a green ammonia industry in the US and around the world,” Joel Moser, CEO of First Ammonia, said in a news release.

Topsoe has previously signed on to supply its 100-megawatt solid oxide electrolyser (SOEC) to the First Ammonia project. However, the company announced in March that it did not extend the contract after multiple delays.

The First Ammonia project was originally expected to come online by 2027 and to produce 1.1 million tonnes of green ammonia. The project is now expected to reach financial before the end of 2026, with construction slated to begin in 2027 and commercial operations launching by 2029.

“As green ammonia projects move from ambition to execution, operational flexibility becomes increasingly important,” Yassir Ghiyati, chief commercial officer at Topsoe, added in a news release. “We’re proud to support First Ammonia with technology designed to enable efficient and reliable green ammonia production. We look forward to continuing to work with the First Ammonia team to help bring this important U.S project to life.”

NASA and Houston researcher tackle climate-driven water quality risks

water watch

Climate change means far more to public health than living with hotter days. Transformations in our weather are contributing to challenges in accessing safe drinking water in some communities.

One of the most dire situations is along the US–Mexico border. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is seeking to address that issue with its Water Quality Applications program. An 11-researcher project led by a UTHealth Houston School of Public Health faculty member has been selected to participate.

“Drinking water is one of the most fundamental public health protections, but producing safe drinking water involves a delicate balance,” Yun Hang, assistant professor of environmental and occupational health sciences, said in a news release. Her team’s proposal was one of 93 that were submitted for funding through NASA’s Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Sciences (ROSES)-2025 program.

This is the first time that NASA has worked with a team devoted to water quality applications. The group, which includes researchers from across the nation, will use satellite observations of Earth, as well as hydrologic modeling, to potentially anticipate and act on water quality conditions as they change. Challenges addressed over the course of the three-year program, which kicked off in June, might include problems with water quality due to climate variability and increased pressure on water resources.

Hang’s team will focus on a pair of borderlands: Paso del Norte and the Rio Grande Valley.

“Working closely with El Paso Water ensures that our research addresses real operational needs while helping utilities better prepare for climate-related water quality changes and continue providing safe drinking water to communities across the Texas border region,” Hang added in the release.

She and the team will use data gathered by NASA on both past and future Earth-observing missions, which will allow them to track environmental changes that may affect source water quality. Combined with past water treatment records and hydrologic models, the team will also utilize artificial intelligence to develop predictive tools that aim to stop issues before they become larger hurdles to water safety.

Another one of the project’s goals is to create visualization tools and source water summaries that can be utilized by those without scientific expertise. The tools will be produced in English and Spanish to further broaden their accessibility.

The hope is that the materials made by the team will also go far beyond the border, with protocols that can be adapted or adopted by other areas dealing with water quality issues.

---

This article originally appeared on our sister site, InnovationMap.com.

New research reveals what really drives data center location decisions

Guest Column

Recent power outages and the surge in AI-driven computing have made data center siting decisions more consequential than ever, especially as energy and water constraints tighten. Communities invest public dollars on the promise of jobs and growth, while firms weigh long-term commitments to land, power and connectivity.

Against that evolving backdrop, a critical question comes into focus: Where do data centers get built — and what actually drives those decisions?

A new study by Tommy Pan Fang (Rice Business) and Shane Greenstein (Harvard Business School) provides the first large-scale statistical analysis of data center location strategies across the United States. It offers policymakers and firms a clearer starting point for understanding how different types of data centers respond to economic and strategic incentives.

Published in the journal Strategy Science, the study examines two major types of infrastructure: third-party colocation centers that lease server space to multiple firms, and hyperscale cloud centers owned by providers like Amazon, Google and Microsoft.

Key takeaways:

Third-party colocation centers are physical facilities in close proximity to firms that use them, while cloud providers operate large data centers from a distance and sell access to virtualized computing resources as on‑demand services over the internet.
Hospitals and financial firms often require urban third-party centers for low latency and regulatory compliance, while batch processing and many AI workloads can operate more efficiently from lower-cost cloud hubs.
For policymakers trying to attract data centers, access to reliable power, water and high-capacity internet matter more than tax incentives.

What are the two main data center location strategies?

The study draws on pre-pandemic data from 2018 and 2019, a period of relative geographic stability in supply and demand. This window gives researchers a clean baseline before remote work, AI demand and new infrastructure pressures began reshaping internet traffic patterns.

The findings show that data centers follow a bifurcated geography:

Third-party centers cluster in dense urban markets, where buyers prioritize proximity to customers despite higher land and operating costs.
Cloud providers, by contrast, concentrate massive sites in a small number of lower-density regions, where electricity, land and construction are cheaper and economies of scale are easier to achieve.

Third-party data centers, in other words, follow demand. They locate in urban markets where firms in finance, healthcare and IT value low latency, secure storage, and compliance with regulatory standards.

Using county-level data, the researchers modeled how population density, industry mix and operating costs predict where new centers enter. Every U.S. metro with more than 700,000 residents had at least one third-party provider, while many mid-sized cities had none.

This pattern challenges common assumptions. Third-party facilities are more distributed across urban America than prevailing narratives suggest.

“For industries where speed is everything, being too far from the physical infrastructure can meaningfully affect performance and risk,” Pan Fang says. “Proximity isn’t optional for sectors that can’t absorb delay.”

In critical operations, even slight pauses can have real consequences. For hospital systems, lag can affect performance and risk exposure. And in high-frequency trading, milliseconds can determine whether value is captured or lost in a transaction.

Why does distance matter for cloud data center costs?

For cloud providers, the picture looks very different. Their decisions follow a logic shaped primarily by cost and scale. Because cloud services can be delivered from afar, firms tend to build enormous sites in low-density regions where power is cheap and land is abundant.

These facilities can draw hundreds of megawatts of electricity and operate with far fewer employees than urban centers. “The cloud can serve almost anywhere,” Pan Fang says, “so location is a question of cost before geography.”

The study finds that cloud infrastructure clusters around network backbones and energy economics, not talent pools. Well-known hubs like Ashburn, Virginia — often called “Data Center Alley” — reflect this logic, having benefited from early network infrastructure that made them natural convergence points for digital traffic.

Local governments often try to lure data centers with tax incentives, betting they will create high-tech jobs. But the study suggests other factors matter more to cloud providers, including construction costs, network connectivity and access to reliable, affordable electricity.

When cloud centers need a local presence, distance can sometimes become a constraint. Providers often address this by working alongside third-party operators. “Third-party centers can complement cloud firms when they need a foothold closer to customers,” Pan Fang says.

That hybrid pattern — massive regional hubs complementing strategic colocation — may define the next phase of data center growth.

Looking ahead, shifts in remote work, climate resilience, energy prices and AI-driven computing may reshape where new facilities go. Some workloads may move closer to users, while others may consolidate into large rural hubs. Emerging data-sovereignty rules could also redirect investment beyond the United States.

“The cloud feels weightless,” Pan Fang says, “but it rests on real choices about land, power and proximity.”

---

This article originally appeared on Rice Business Wisdom. Written by Scott Pett. Pan Fang and Greenstein (2025). “Where the Cloud Rests: The Economic Geography of Data Centers,” Strategy Science.

View All Listings

ENERGYCAPITALHTX EMAILS ARE AWESOME