It explains the intent (to protect consumers/grid from price changes and fluctuation), and bans 20MW+ loads. They forgot to define load, so a behind-the-meter datacenter (zero net load on the grid) still would likely not get permitted even though it does not violate the intent of the law, which is a bit odd.

Like data centers, factories use a lot of power -- which drives up electricity bills -- and their construction can have local environmental impacts. Data centers have a reputation for not providing too many local jobs, but modern factories are often highly automated and also don't provide too many local jobs.

If, given all that, you'd support factory construction but not data center construction, I'd be curious as to why.

Most people there seriously don’t give a shit about AI. They care about maintaining the peace, quiet, and purity of their land. Because they enjoy it.

Many of you miss the perspective because you’ve never been there.

Given that, the bill is just for show, and not actually serious.

> The council shall evaluate issues related to data centers located or proposed to be located in the State, with the goals of protecting ratepayers, maintaining electric grid reliability, minimizing environmental impacts and enabling responsible and appropriately sited economic development.

https://legislature.maine.gov/legis/bills/getPDF.asp?paper=H...

NIMBY causes energy prices to go up in areas that won't allow drilling, refining, nuclear or nat gas development, or power lines. When will the same happen for things like AI services?

Instead of banning, why not put the REAL price tag on it? Require local employment. Stop subsidizing infrastructure. Start taxing them. If a data center came in and provided jobs, paid their own way without handouts, and lowered electricity costs, it might be a different story.

It's not data centers per se. It's the crony capitalism that subsidizes them and lets them extract wealth without oversight. Regulate it properly and the negative characteristics go away. And yes, putting the actual price tag on it might scare away most investors - an effective ban. But that's the market working efficiently on price signals.

instead of blocking data centers, we need to scale up energy production. the solution is to get rid of all the red tape that makes it so impossible to build in America.

quality of life metrics are highly correlated to the availability of energy.

Does the move benefit companies with existing DCs whose competition can no longer establish a region there?

"Water usage" and especially "safety" are bullshit arguments against building new data centers - in particular the idea that data centers use a lot of water was popularized by the freelance prestige journalist Karen Hao, who got a lot of her facts egregiouly, sloppily wrong in her reporting about AI data centers. This is either retarded environmentalism unconcerned with facts; or the actual motivation to prevent data center construction is some kind of more nebulous distrust of big tech or AI companies or concern that AI will take people's jobs.

  ...temporarily blocking permits for any new data center requiring more than 20 
  megawatts. The measure runs until November 2027, buying time for a new Data 
  Center Coordination Council to study how these facilities strain Maine’s 
  aging electrical grid.

---

Will the DC cover the costs of its own expanded power generation needs? Are residential and small business users protected?

Can the water system handle the increased usage in a given area?

What physical discharges are created? Waste heat air, waste heat water, etc?

What kind of noise will be generated? Are there limits on use of onsite fossil fuel power generation?

For a known amount of data enter power, dedicate 125% of power in solar and battery.

Need cooling? Use liquid geothermal loops. Or radiate energy back into space. We know frequencies that do not reflect in atmo.

Acoustic pollution is another area. Acoustic tiles, building plans, and natural noise barriers are also of utmost importance too.

We need more compute. Plain banning is not the way. Demanding highly ecological and conserving solutions is.

Personally, I see little reason to ban new taxpayers with few-to-none negative externalities from moving into your state, but what do i know?

Maine will go bankrupt? Maine will turn into a barren backwater? There will be no jobs?

Read this instead as, people hate this shit. They don't want datacenters, they don't want AI, they don't feel like those things are doing anything for them.

You will win the policy debate by saying:

"a datacenter uses just as much electricity and provides just as many jobs as a car parts factory, so it's silly to ban the one and not the other when you can just as easily examine the externalities of the datacenter and blah blah blah"

But you will be missing the point, which is that people see building car parts as a solid, upstanding thing which has tangible and direct benefits to people; whereas building an AI datacenter means allowing some rich California surveillance czar to suck the water and power from your local community so that they can steal your job, fracture your community, and impoverish your family. One is good and one is bad and the voter's choice is to do the good thing and not the bad thing.

Even if car parts factories pollute more than datacenters do.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/25/datacenters-...

Nice to see some success for their ideas.