I think a fair argument can be made that the buildout is not because people are using, but instead based on an expectation that people *will* be using them.

If it were the case that we overrun the capacity then one would expect companies to be a bit more restrained. Instead almost every google search gets an "AI Overview", inflating the query cost a hundred fold without the user ever actually opting in. So many companies are embedding AI implicitly into existing flows without user demand being actively expressed. This is not the behavior of a market starved of resources that would be saving the capacity for those that specifically opt into it and further the ones that would pay for it.

The scenario that we are under sized for the current demand would imply that no one should be able to see 'free' usage of AI in their experience and would be expected to pay up.

It's not just about the energy, we have water and land usage concerns as well. A few cases around here of farmland potentially going to datacenter buildout, and I'm not sure that's a good long term trade.

It's abundantly clear this is a tech bubble, with some undefined durable demand, but the current speculative buildout may never get fully utilized. By the time the non-bubble demand catches up, there's good chances that we have a whole other approach that dramatically changes what sorts of resources are needed. For example people sometimes defend the dot-com buildout as rational because, eventually, we surpassed even the dreams of back then, but we had to scrap a lot of that buildout as hopelessly irrelevant to the market that was all-in on internet.

Part of what gets the average ratepayer are the infrastructure costs. Datacentre buildouts require sometimes-massive grid connections. Those upgrades often fall on the general public.

Agreed. I wish people would stop treating data centers as bogeymen. Most people aren't opposed to data centers per se, they're opposed to the side-effects. They're concerned about the energy usage and its effect on consumer energy rates. They're concerned about water usage. They're concerned about noise. They're concerned about heat pollution in the surrounding environment.

The thing is, all those things (with the possible exception of heat pollution) are fixable! They just take money and regulators with t

I bet you'll see a bunch of them protesting, but near the data center exhaust because it's nice and warm. I mean seriously, of all places, *Maine*?

Does AWS or any of the big AI companies really want to build a data center in Maine? It's not exactly near any major Internet backbones or major tech hubs. The electricity there is expensive as well, plus you have to worry about blizzards disrupting your diesel deliveries during a power outage.

It seems like someone is trying to score easy political points "protesting" something that probably wasn't going to be built anyway.

They don't ban datacenters, they just ban *new* datacenters, for now.

I haven't read as to what counts as new datacenter construction. If they can expand existing, or renovate existing. If it's anything like retail around here, datacenter operators being pressured to reuse existing infrastructure wouldn't be terrible. We have a blight of dead retail space even as they keep clearing forest to make new retail space. I would *love* if retail industry was forced to revitalize the abandoned retail footprint i

> has data that goes through, or is stored in a data center, otherwise, they'll come off like hypocrites.,

1) It's a temporary ban not a permanent one. 2) There have been no major datacenter projects in Maine yet. 3) One of the reasons for the ban is to allow the state to assess infrastructure changes. Some of these datacenters are being built with a "If you build it, they will come" attitude when it comes to infrastructure demands like electricity and water. In decades past when companies built datacenters, they had to plan for these things and some datacenters built their own power and water plants.

No different from when ExxonMobil CEO sued to ban fracking in his backyard. We are all hypocrites. I don't want toxic chemicals spilt in my yard but ok with purchasing products that are made in 3rd world countries without regulations on exposure or storage to said chemicals. Ever see how 3rd world countries mine computer parts for precious metals? Data centers suck, they will raise the temp around and will be noisy has hell. I live near a pharmaceutical manufacture that keeps expanding and they are constant

They're coming off as sensible people trying to find reasonable solutions to real problems. This is only a short term construction ban until November of next year. That will give them time to work out long term solutions and get the proper regulations in place. That seems sensible.

The CNBC article struck me as one sided and strongly pro-business. [1]This article [cnn.com] is more in depth and goes into more detail about what the bill is meant to address. A relevant quote:

> State lawmakers are reacting to the "speed, scale and secrecy" of many data center projects, said Jason Beckfield, a Harvard University sociology professor studying data centers. Developers are on highly compressed timelines of weeks and months. Often, projects can feel like they fall out of the sky, he said.

> "There's such a strong culture of secrecy around these things, it leaves regular community members and their elected representatives in a position where they can't possibly hope to keep up," Beckfield said.

[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2026/04/12/climate/maine-data-center-ban-bill

Because Maine does not want new datacenters, network communications like TCP/IP stops working across state lines?

Such a naive comment.

Data centers don't build or maintain infrastructure or housing or anything tangible. In fact they are a parasite on infrastructure often causing massive cost increases to surrounding residents. Any job creation is short lived once the thing is up and running.

- It's leaches vs honey bees.

That would at least bring jobs.

Building the data center brings some temporary jobs but under normal operation only a handful of people work there. Mostly to change out failed hardware.

Was anyone planning on building a data center in Maine in the next two years? Probably not, so all this amounts to is a meaningless law that politicians can say they worked hard on to ensure that the citizens of Maine were blah blah blah. Even though it did nothing expect it to be talked about excessively when the candidate is up for reelection. This is just a hot button issue that a lot of people are worried about or feel strongly about so it's easy to score points with voters with something that cost no p

"Better to let the market sort out how many data centers we need and where they should be. There's absolutely no need for government to get involved,"

I grew up with coal mines & "crackers" in my back yard and coal-trains rumbling past at 2-AM. Across town subsurface mine-fires burned for decades spewing massive SO2 & CO into the air. Pretty flames at night ... City buildings fell into mines where the "pillars" were robbed. Mine cave-ins tried swallowing the Susquehanna

Problem is a lot of local communities do not understand these facilities.

Was a news story around here where a datacenter project was deeply regretted by the local politicians. They saw "business will build facitlity with huge amount of square feet" and their closest comparison was a textile plant of about that size and how many jobs they used to provide. So they excitedly bent over backwards to accommodate the datacenter project and then ultimately had an enduring employment of about 6 jobs.

Tax revenue? Th