In a mid-March poll, 68% of likely Illinois voters said they would support legislation to “regulate data centers to minimize their impact on our utility bills, climate, and water while still allowing them to be built.”
But while 21% opposed the legislation, more than half of those opponents (56%) said they did so because they “oppose allowing data centers to be built at all.” That means 80% either want guardrails or oppose any new construction.
So, yeah, it’s not looking great for anyone who might want to fend off regulation. As you’ll see below, this is an 80-plus percent issue pretty much across the board.
Global Strategy Group conducted the survey of 800 likely voters March 16-19 on behalf of the Illinois Clean Jobs Coalition, which is pushing the Protecting Our Water, Energy, and Ratepayers, or POWER, Act, legislation (Senate Bill 4016/House Bill 5513). The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5%.
The proposal was initially supported by large bipartisan majorities, the poll found, as well as in all regions of the state. Democrats and independents supported it the most (71%), while Republicans support was strong, but not by as much at 61%.
And 56% of Republicans who said they opposed the bill told the pollster they did so because they didn’t want any data centers built, period. The same was said by 64% of likely downstate voters. Keep in mind that the margin of error for voter subsets is substantially higher.
Organized labor has asked the governor to not pursue his proposed two-year moratorium on state data center construction tax breaks. The governor stood by his proposal, but did offer the possibility of a compromise.
Whether the environmentalists’ bill is the answer remains to be seen. But it seems clear from the poll that Illinoisans want some real regulation of this industry.
For example, 96% said they agreed that the state should “ensure data centers pay their fair share of water infrastructure costs,” with 85% strongly agreeing. Ninety-three percent say data centers should be required to “use efficient cooling systems to reduce water consumption,” with 75% strongly agreeing. You almost never see poll numbers like that on anything.
Ninety-one percent said they want to “prohibit data centers from shifting their energy costs to consumer bills,” and 91% also said they want to “require data centers to provide their own clean energy and storage to power their operations.” The only difference was intensity. Eighty-four percent strongly agreed that cost-shifting should be outlawed, while 70% strongly support requiring the centers to provide their own clean energy and storage.
It goes on from there. “Require an analysis that a data center won’t increase harmful health, water, and environmental impacts on vulnerable communities before a project moves forward,” received 92% support with 79% strong support. Another 86% agreed that rules should be tightened which allow backup diesel generators for data centers to limit their use during “true emergencies.”
And a whopping 97% said data centers should be required to report their water sourcing and usage. That’s about as close as you can possibly get to unanimous in a poll.
New technologies and the companies behind them are quite unpopular, but not as much as you might expect after seeing those numbers above.
Thirty-nine percent of respondents said they had a favorable view of artificial intelligence (25% “very favorable”), while 51% had an unfavorable view (25% “very unfavorable”).
Thirty-five percent rated “big tech companies” favorably, while 55% rated them unfavorably.
And just 30% rated data centers favorably, while 51% rated them unfavorably (32% “very unfavorably,” which was the highest of all three).
The House held a hearing on the chamber’s version of the POWER Act earlier this month. The Senate held a marathon hearing over two days the same week on a large number of bills dealing with artificial intelligence (which uses lots of data centers), social media, etc.
Many of these bills appear to come from a desire to address the all too obvious anger of the electorate. Some lobbyists are hoping that the usual legislative “wait and see” inertia sets in. And, if the poll is accurate, voters have not made this a huge priority when it comes to their own state legislators.
According to the poll, just 37% said they’d view their legislators more favorably if their members supported the bill, while 17% said they’d view them less favorably. Almost half, 48%, said it made no difference either way.
- Friendly Bob Adams - Monday, Apr 20, 26 @ 8:54 am:
To me the big issue is water. You can always generate more electricity, but you can’t generate more water.
- Steve - Monday, Apr 20, 26 @ 9:03 am:
Illinois would be a good place for data centers. Cooler weather and water availability. But, if Illinois voters don’t want them: they will go elsewhere. That’s federalism for you. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are more data center in Wisconsin 10 years from now.
- Jack in Chatham - Monday, Apr 20, 26 @ 9:07 am:
These data centers are a threat to privacy. I would like a better explanation of what kind of business activities or scientific research they are going to be used for to better society.
- sulla - Monday, Apr 20, 26 @ 9:54 am:
“But, if Illinois voters don’t want them: they will go elsewhere.”
And, since the MISO/PJM power grids are multi-state, when these projects inevitably get built in Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa etc. the negative externalities regarding energy costs will be still be born by Illinois residents. …Just without the gigantic local property tax generation these DCs create.
This is the evergreen problem with unilateral disarmament in economic development.
- Steve - Monday, Apr 20, 26 @ 10:01 am:
- the negative externalities regarding energy costs will be still be born by Illinois-
Not much can be done unless there’s some federal law banning data centers. It is what it is.
- JS Mill - Monday, Apr 20, 26 @ 10:07 am:
=without the gigantic local property tax generation these DCs create.=
LOL, I love your optimism.
- Leap Day William - Monday, Apr 20, 26 @ 10:25 am:
== without the gigantic local property tax generation these DCs create. ==
Is the gigantic local property tax generation in the room with us? Because a healthy chunk of these projects are being built with gigantic tax abatements and incentives, so I wouldn’t say the other states on the MISO grid are exactly getting any long-term upside from their construction.
- Jocko - Monday, Apr 20, 26 @ 10:58 am:
Data Centers are in some ways like stadiums. There is a lot of buzz and money changing hands during the construction, but how many salaried people end up working there? 20…30?
- sulla - Monday, Apr 20, 26 @ 11:09 am:
“Is the gigantic local property tax generation in the room with us? Because a healthy chunk of these projects are being built with gigantic tax abatements and incentives, so I wouldn’t say the other states on the MISO grid are exactly getting any long-term upside from their construction.”
If a local community is dumb enough to offer property tax abatement for a DC, then your beef should be with the locals making that decision. The only tangible benefit these things provide is a massive property tax payment. It’d be like abating property taxes on a wind farm.
These projects are massive and for a lot of communities in central/southern Illinois may be the biggest projects by capex that those counties will ever see. You want to see a stop to building DCs (fine), but unless there is a national moratorium you’ll get zero benefit from unilateral disarmament and you’re still going to pay more for your electricity regardless.
- Candy Dogood - Monday, Apr 20, 26 @ 11:28 am:
===Just without the gigantic local property tax generation these DCs create. ===
Not sure you understand how loud these things can be.
- Mister Ed - Monday, Apr 20, 26 @ 12:24 pm:
What gets me in addition to the environmental and health concerns, is lack of a decommissioning plan. None. Corporations come in with big promises and when they leave, we the taxpayer, are stuck with the clean-up and costs - abandoned mines, abandoned oil wells, toxic industries and on and on.
- Anyone Remember - Monday, Apr 20, 26 @ 12:34 pm:
Opponents would do well to follow the example of Festus, MO.
- P. - Monday, Apr 20, 26 @ 2:32 pm:
Maybe if the proponents were able to demonstrate a material benefit the numbers wouldn’t be so one sided. I say maybe because the costs are large and direct in terms of the utilities and very symbolic in terms of our civic pride etc in the water resources. Heretofore, I have seen a lot of examples of how our glorious Internet is getting worse and not a lot about how data centers is making it better, more useful, safer, more pleasant, nada.
- Dotnonymous x - Monday, Apr 20, 26 @ 3:10 pm:
Data centers are often both loud and environmentally “dirty” due to intense, 24/7 cooling systems and backup diesel generators, creating noise pollution (often 55–70+ dB nearby) and air emissions.
Data centers emit low-frequency infrasound (< 20 Hz), which travels long distances, penetrates walls, and can cause health issues like stress or vertigo The facilities consume vast amounts of energy and water.
- Dotnonymous x - Monday, Apr 20, 26 @ 3:12 pm:
- It is what it is. -
Show your proof?
- Dotnonymous x - Monday, Apr 20, 26 @ 3:21 pm:
It is what it is…really means we should just accept whatever our overlords choose for us?