By Mark McNees
Here’s a number that should get your attention: $14.7 billion. That’s what 67 million Americans paid in extra electricity charges this past summer. Household bills jumped $20 to $30, with projections showing another $70 per month by 2033 if nothing changes.
Data centers are easy targets. A single facility can draw enough power for 80,000 homes. But blaming data centers misses the real problem.
The failures that allow costs to shift from companies to families are policy failures, not technology failures. Solutions exist, and some states are implementing them.
The cost question
The fairest approach: Data centers should pay their own way. Arizona opened a regulatory docket ensuring ratepayers aren’t burdened with data center infrastructure costs. Georgia proposed legislation prohibiting these costs from being passed to other customers. Michigan established frameworks requiring data centers not impact cost or reliability for other ratepayers.
The Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that requiring data centers to bring their own capacity could save ratepayers $100 billion through 2032.
Federal policy is making things worse
Here’s a frustrating contradiction. The fastest, cheapest way to add electricity generation is solar paired with battery storage. Orders for new gas turbines face seven-year delays. Solar deploys in months. Yet the One Big Beautiful Bill Act phases out federal tax credits for wind and solar projects entering service after 2027.
The legislation preserves battery storage incentives, which the administration clearly recognizes are essential. But batteries need something to store. Cutting incentives for our cheapest generation while keeping storage credits is like subsidizing gas tanks while taxing gasoline.
The OBBBA’s goal of reducing foreign supply chain dependence has merit. But the market has spoken. Renewable energy comprised 93% of new electricity capacity in 2024. Texas leads with 42,000 megawatts of wind and 10.3 gigawatts of battery storage through pure market competition.
Energy Innovation projects wholesale prices increasing 25% by 2030 as cheaper renewable capacity is curtailed. This isn’t environmental activism. It’s economics.
Grid reliability and who gets cut first
The North American Electric Reliability Corporation warns that data center demand could trigger rolling blackouts during extreme weather. When shortages hit, who gets cut first?
Fair policy requires large commercial users bear the burden before residential customers. Several grid operators now offer “conditional” connections where data centers agree to reduce consumption during emergencies. Homes stay lit while server farms cycle down.
This isn’t punishing innovation. It’s prioritizing families during crises.
The water problem
Electricity isn’t the only resource at stake. Large data centers consume 5 million gallons of water daily, equivalent to a town of 50,000 people. In northern Virginia, consumption increased 63% from 2019 to 2023.
Technology offers solutions. Immersion cooling eliminates evaporative water use entirely. Solar and wind power require dramatically less water than fossil-fuel plants. Coal facilities consume 19,185 gallons per megawatt-hour. Wind and solar require none.
The path forward
Data centers are the backbone of cloud computing, artificial intelligence and the digital economy, powering American competitiveness. The answer isn’t blocking them. It requires them to be good grid citizens while restoring market-driven incentives.
States that implement fair cost allocation, grid-priority rules and water-sustainability requirements will lead the modern economy. Those that let tech giants externalize costs while internalizing profits will burden families with higher bills, reliability risks and strained water supplies.
Data centers aren’t the villains. The problems lies with weak regulatory frameworks combined with federal policies that impede market-driven solutions.
Dr. Mark McNees is the director of Social and Sustainable Enterprises at Florida State University’s Jim Moran College of Entrepreneurship. Banner photo: An aerial view of an electrical substation (iStock image).
Sign up for The Invading Sea newsletter by visiting here. To support The Invading Sea, click here to make a donation. If you are interested in submitting an opinion piece to The Invading Sea, email Editor Nathan Crabbe.
Yeah this is one of those pieces that makes me go: **wait… why am *I* paying for this?**
$14.7 billion in extra electricity bills isn’t some abstract number — that’s real people watching their monthly costs creep up while massive data centers quietly externalize the damage. And blaming “tech” is lazy. The article nails it: this is a **policy L**, not a technology one.
What really gets me is how upside-down the incentives are. We already know the cheapest, fastest energy is solar + batteries, yet policy is out here cutting renewables while pretending storage alone magically works. That “gas tank but no gasoline” analogy? Brutal. Accurate. No notes.
And let’s be real: when grids get stressed, households always lose first unless rules explicitly protect them. Making data centers throttle usage during emergencies isn’t anti-innovation — it’s basic fairness. Same with water. If a single facility drinks like a city of 50,000 people, you *don’t* get to call that “invisible impact.”
All of this circles back to one uncomfortable truth: **most people don’t actually know how money, infrastructure, and policy decisions hit their personal finances** until the bill shows up. And by then, it’s too late.
That’s why I always tell people: before arguing politics or tech, understand your own financial logic first. If you want a quick reality check on how you *think* about money, risk, and long-term tradeoffs, I genuinely recommend
👉 **[https://kuakua.app/test/rich-dad-financial-test](https://kuakua.app/test/rich-dad-financial-test)**
It’s not about getting rich overnight — it’s about spotting blind spots before systems quietly drain you.
Data centers aren’t villains. Weak rules are. And if we don’t understand the money flow, we’ll keep footing bills we never agreed to.