Don't Look Up is about ignoring expert consensus on a clear threat, not about rejecting benefits out of fear. For the analogy to land, you'd need overwhelming evidence that these data centers are net-positive for host communities, but that's exactly what's in dispute.

You're right that there's tension between 'not enough power' and 'no new heavy loads' but it's not hypocritical to argue that megawatts of power should be allocated towards 7k jobs rather than a few dozen if possible. That's exactly the kind of tradeoff a power-constrained state should be explicitly making. The logic behind it is not satirical, it's just triage.

On top of that, this is not a blanket ban of AI datacenters. It's a temporary blocking of any new datacenters that require more than 20 megawatts until late 2027 pending a PUC study on how these datacenters will affect their existing grid. It also creates a new council for researching and coordinating the creation of new datacenters, so this really doesn't seem like any sort of NIMBY action here.

Honestly the only major issue I have with the bill is that it neglects to distinguish self-powered facilities that don't provide much strain on the grid. Though it could be argued that water consumption of these centers might be the reason for it.

Perhaps unfortunately, vibes are part of being human. Ignore them at your peril.

So maybe someone can open a new sandwich shop and accomplish the same thing without screwing everybody else in the process. Not only that, Lewiston probably doesn’t have a glut of data center talent seeking employment —I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that not a single person living in Lewiston when a project like that was approved would be employed there.

Not if it drives up energy prices and makes other businesses that employ more people less competitive. Not saying that is the case but it’s certainly not a given

Are you saying that those thirty job will go to people currently living in Lewiston?

If so, thirty jobs are on the plus side. What's on the minus side?

imagine how many other 30-job employers could fit on the same land that the datacenter would take up.

a mcdonalds is probably 1% of the land and employs more than 30 people.

(the # of jobs angle is not the right approach if you are a proponent of new datacenters. there are much stronger arguments to be made)

> Data centers are a net negative wherever they are.

They really shouldn't be.

There is a need for them and they aren't inherently damaging. There's no reason they can't be placed under some environmental regulations that cancel all their negatives, at least on some places. And they would still pay taxes.

But no, datacenter owners are using their connections to remove any regulation instead.

Perhaps they are simply not taxed enough to benefit the community. If the local municipality is bearing a lot of these hidden costs, then perhaps the taxes need to be higher and directed at efforts that mitigate the worst of the problems. Water management solutions, air pollution management. Are there ways to mitigate the noise pollution? It seems like they should be taxed /more/ to help offset the negatives. There is surely a way to mitigate the problems. For example, can the noise pollution be addressed by forcing more green spaces around them, etc?

noise pollution (it’s really worth watching Benn Jordan’s video on infrasound,)

Noise from data centers is a real issue, but Benn's measurements and analysis are not great (speeding up the sample rate to demonstrate frequency effects is just wrong, among other issues).

This thread is obviously being brigaded. Wiped out like 30 upvotes on one comment in no time. If you need to silence people talking about your company or favorite toy, maybe you should re-examine your life choices. Pathetic. Is there some polymarket nonsense going on here?

Doesn't this also apply to new housing? Strain on services per job created is probably even higher. The benefits are for someone currently not living here, just like data centers used for remote users. And if cheaper housing is available obnoxious poor people might move in. I think there should be a moratorium. Not in my backyard!

> Though I’ve seen some astonishingly misinformed politicians offering big tax incentives for data centers

My national government is currently giving massive tax breaks for one of these. It's going to be, after all, "the biggest foreign investment in the country ever"...

The number the developer gave in a press release was "20-30." I find that reasonable as a very large Facebook data center near me has a permanent staff of around 50. Keep in mind that these large DCs use contractors for the majority of the work, which unfortunately doesn't really help with employment because the contractors mostly come in from out of state (there is a HUGE temp labor market for traveling IT technicians and skilled crafts get hired mostly from big national outfits that just send whatever crew is available next). It is good for the hotel business though.

Once it's built, it basically runs itself.

You have a guard, some remote hands, maintenance, maybe additional security or two, times 4 for the various shifts. 30 sounds about right.

Even 20 years ago the datacenters I worked with often had fewer employees onsite than "visitors" - because they rented out racks.

From the Maine Monitor:

[…]the data center would have employed only about 30 workers, the city estimated.