Ask your elected officials to data center-proof your world! Starting right here in Ventura!

LOCAL: What was a hypothetical issue in Ventura – the construction of a data center – is now a real possibility!

Navigate: Top * Fair action * City Action * State Action * Fed Action *
( Note: This is a rapidly changing post, as new information comes in, and actions are added in response!)

MARK YOUR CALENDARS!: Sept. 15: TWO NEW LOCAL ACTIONS
9:00 am: Global Stack‘s CEO & President are presenting their project to the Fair Board!

  • (VCreporter) “Ventura County Fairgrounds officials have scheduled a Sept. 15 discussion and possible action on a controversial proposal by a company called Global Stack USA, which is hoping to build what it is calling a “distributed resilience network.

    The Orange County-based company has proposed infrastructure at about 70 state-owned fairgrounds across California including parking garages, helicopter landing pads and “edge computers” as part of a statewide emergency response network.”

  • WRITE THE FAIR BOARD: Write to info@venturacountyfair.org. Your communication will be inserted into the Board packet for next meeting. Try to get it in by Monday, noon.

5:00 pm: Ventura City Council is presenting letter for Fair Board.

  • VENTURA CITY COUNCIL MEETING: Consent Item #6: Proposed Correspondence Expressing Concerns over a Potential Data Center Project at the Ventura County Fairgrounds.

    City Manager Bill Ayub will present the letter expressing concerns over a potential Data Center Project and the staff recommendation to authorize the Mayor to send it to the Ventura County Fairgrounds CEO.

    (Read the Staff Report and Letter here.)

    This is all very nice, but we need commenters to ask them to do more! Like ban data centers completely within the city of Ventura.

More actions below!

WHAT’S BEING PROPOSED!

Hmm…there’s a lot of data center equipment hiding behind the label!
(This image is from their presentation for the Calistoga fairgrounds. Here is an excellent article on its reception to the residents of that city.)

This is the developers’ “origin” story!

Using a quote from a helicopter pilot about evacuating his own family after a possible earthquake as their supposed inspiration, Global Stack wants to infest our fairgrounds and as many as 70 others throughout the state with self-contained data-processing units the size of shipping containers, that supposedly would not use water, However each one would need the electrical power required for a mid-size shopping center sourced from the local utility grid, and looking over their proposal to Calistoga, it is hard to tell exactly how many of these mini-data centers would be placed at each site. They would be installed along with a 3-story parking garage and a heliport, paid for by private investors, at a cost of about $20 million per site for emergency services and $6 billion for data initiatives for the entire state system. Um…What!?! Read the VC Star article on this here.

“WE’RE DOING THIS TO HELP YOU!” They are marketing their fairground takeovers to us as a benevolent quasi-public utility – an emergency response system – for fire, police and medical – if regular communications fail, along with access to helicopters for emergency transport. They say that their project would cost us nothing to build, and that the fairground would retain ownership of the property, usually 2-5 acres and they would give us a fraction of their profit for selling data that’s not for emergency use and from helicopter landing fees. However, none of this story makes the slightest bit of sense from an business perspective, unless they really are just a data center 99.99% of the time and the emergency story is just a sideshow.

“WE ARE NOT A DATA CENTER!” Yes, they are! This image is from their website, where they say it’s an “emergency-resilience system.” Since it would only be that during an emergency, they have also called their data centers “Edge data centers,” the only distinction is that they process data locally, instead sending it to a cloud computer. Now they want to be called “sovereign edge data centers,” because sovereign is a cooler word. They remain data centers.

Since the emergencies they say they’re building for are not a daily 24/7 event, what do these shipping containers full of mysterious energy-gobbling machinery do in the meantime to justify their cost? From their Calistoga presentation: These are the guys who will be doing the profitable work of data mining in between emergencies.

WE ARE USING “ORDINARY COMMERCIAL LOAD LEVELS” OF POWER: “Global Stack told several fairgrounds that its data centers would be 8 to 10 megawatts. That’s far smaller than most already operational in California, but they would still consume as much electricity as several thousand households – far more than a typical commercial building, Ren said.” Oh, and they keep showing multiple of these beasties in their cutesy faux “pencil sketches.”

THEY ARE NOT A CHARITY!: What is not mentioned on their website is that the leases that they’ve proposed to other cities are for 100 years or more! A multi-generational-length land use agreement locking up prime public land next to a beach for their exclusive use – how much is that worth?

With this public resource, they will create a privatized helipad company using PanGalactica LLC to run commercial air shuttle networks. Through their subsidiary MeshClusters LLC, they will sell edge computing and AI Services. Yes, a minor service will be a privatized emergency communication system, something that we already have, and we can rent their helicopters in an emergency. All in all, this sounds like a great deal for them!

Image above from Calistoga presentation.

Image above from corporate website

We’re not a charity either: We note that they are not paying a penny for beachfront land that could lease for $500k/yr./acre. A 5-acre patch should cost them over 2,500,000/yr.

AND this is going in the wrong direction. Not only do we not want data centers in our community, we’re not putting our emergency service communication system into the hands of investor-owned corporations. We’re trying to reduce the spread of investor-owned utilities, like PG&E, a corporation convicted of 84 counts of involuntary manslaughter for the Paradise Fire and whose CEO is making a $19.8 million dollar salary. Seriously, we just passed a law to keep investor-owned utilities from helping themselves to customer money to fund political and lobbying costs.

And WHY exactly do they need 2-5 acres for a data center the size of a shipping container?
This is the future they showed Calistoga. Yeah, that “Data Center” looks a lot bigger than a shipping container. Once they get that 100-year lease, how would we stop them from turning a small box into a full size center data center like they’re showing here?

But the pencil sketch style makes it look so folksy! (Calistoga presentation)

NOTHING TO SEE HERE, FOLKS! MOVE ALONG! (Who’s who in this whole game):

  • Nicholas Kovacevich, president of Global Stack, was a SITTING MEMBER OF THE ORANGE COUNTY FAIR BOARD, and the Board Chair in 2025! Just your basic millionaire conflict of interest issue.
  • Dan Kang, CEO of Global Stack. He is the founder and chairman of Berify, a company that uses blockchain technology — a tamper-resistant digital ledger — to verify that physical products are authentic and guard against counterfeits.” Kang previously supplied apparel to the LuLaRoe company, and later became involved in legal disputes and litigation with the company and its founders after the company faced major financial and operational collapses. LuLaRoe was the focus of a four-part docu-series on its “infamous multilevel marketing” scheme, “essentially a pyramid-type scheme, where advancement and profits for employees are based more on recruitment than sales. And in fact, earlier this year the company paid out $4.75 million to settle a lawsuit claiming LuLaRoe deceived some 3,000 Washington state residents to get them involved in selling.
  • Michael Flores, the deputy secretary for fairs and expositions under the California Department of Food and Agriculture, has made introductions for Global Stack LLC, attended pitch meetings and accompanied executives on tours as the company proposes adding parking garages, helipads and data centers to properties best known for aging exhibit halls and livestock barns. At least three fairgrounds have entered non-binding agreements to move forward with Global Stack.
  • Ellesse Flores, daughter of Michael Flores, works for Global Stack. “At the Del Mar Fairgrounds in San Diego County, father and daughter attended the same meeting – Michael Flores on behalf of the CDFA and Ellesse Flores on behalf of Global Stack. At the Southern California Fair and Events Center in Perris (Riverside County), Ellesse Flores answered questions on behalf of the company as fair directors discussed her father’s support for the project.“
  • (pressreader) Fam­ily ties in data pitch – State fair­grounds offi­cial’s daugh­ter works for AI-focused com­pany he is pro­mot­ing to revital­ize ven­ues with devel­op­ing tech­no­logy
  • (Yahoo – San Francisco Chronicle) Exclusive: A California official helped a company pitching data centers. His daughter works there

Top * Fair action * City Action * State Action * Fed Action *

FAIRGROUND ACTIONS: Write to the Fair Board, show up at meetings and more!

  • PETITION: Sign the petition against the AI Data Center at the Ventura Fairgrounds.
  • WRITE THE FAIR BOARD: Write to info@venturacountyfair.org. Your communication will be inserted into the Board packet for next meeting
  • GO TO THE MEETING: Go to the Sept. 15th Fairground Board meeting. September, date to be determined, at the Santa Rosa Room at 9:00 am and speak during public comments. The data center isn’t on the current agenda. (Note: You can use in the parking lot for free if you tell the parking attendant you’re going to this meeting!)
  • VENTURA CITY COUNCIL: We went to the City Council Meeting on Aug. 18 to ask for a ban within the boundaries of the city of Ventura to be place on a future agenda. WE WERE SUCCESSFUL! 7-0. Come back on Sept. 15th, when a letter from the city in opposition to a data center at the fairgrounds will be presented. We want to say – “Yes, that’s a great start, but we also want an actual ordinance that prevents data centers from happening anywhere in the City of Ventura.”
  • STATE COMPLAINTS: Along with asking our state legislators to ban data centers on all state property, we would also like them to investigate possible conflicts of interest between Global Stack, Michael Flores and his daughter Ellesse. After working our way through Att. General Rob Bonta’s phone tree, we were advised to contact our legislators, Governor Newsom and the office of the CA State Auditor.

WHICH WE DID!!!

CONTINUE TO DO SO! LET THEM KNOW WE ARE STILL WATCHING!!!

  • STATE LEGISLATORS: Min. call or email script: “I’m calling from [zip code] and I would like [Assemblymember/Senator______] to create emergency legislation that would both ban the placement of data centers of any size on state property, including fairgrounds, and institute a moratorium on all other data centers until comprehensive regulations can be put in place to protect people, communities, and the environment. I would also like them to investigate a possible conflict of interest that has been exposed by the San Francisco Chronicle between Michael Flores, the deputy secretary for fairs and expositions under the California Department of Food and Agriculture, and Global Stack, a private company attempting to place data centers in 70 of our state’s fairgrounds.
  • GOVERNOR NEWSOM: I would like Governor Newsom to support emergency legislation that would ban the placement of data centers of any size on state property, including fairgrounds, and institute a moratorium on all other data centers until comprehensive regulations can be put in place to protect people, communities, and the environment. I would also like his office to investigate a possible conflict of interest that has been recently exposed by the San Francisco Chronicle between Michael Flores, the deputy secretary for fairs and expositions under the California Department of Food and Agriculture, and Global Stack, a private company attempting to place data centers in 70 of our state’s fairgrounds.
  • CA STATE AUDITOR: Whistleblower tip line:
    https://app.scoutcms.com/CaStateAuditorWhistleblowerComplaint

    Under “Allegation“: “We are part of a community that does not want Global Stack to park their data centers at our fairgrounds, or anywhere on state-owned property. We have become aware through the media links below that a state official appears to be working with this corporation to influence fair boards to add their facilities. The corporation also employs his daughter, who seemingly tag-teams presentations with her father to these fair boards.” (https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/exclusive-california-fair-official-key-120000598.html)
    (https://www.pressreader.com/usa/san-francisco-chronicle-late-edition-sunday/20260816/281479283246563)

    Under “Evidence“, we just said “See media references in the above comment.”
    Under “Subject Information“, we put this.

THANK YOU TO THE COMMUNITY!

Thanks to everyone who was able to show up to the Fair Board meeting Tuesday to protest the possible addition of a data center to the fairgrounds! Whether or not you spoke, your very presence helped the Board commit to PUBLICLY addressing this issue from now on!

“Board President Guillermo Ceja Jr. told the crowd state law prevents directors from responding to questions and comments because the Global Stack proposal wasn’t on the agenda. At the end of the meeting, Board Director Leslie Cornejo asked for the issue to be put on the September agenda for public discussion.

She said the proposal should have been brought to the community earlier, noting previous discussions have happened in closed session.

“It’s high time,” she said of a public conversation. Directors Dan Long and Miriam Mack voiced their support for making the discussion public. Ceja said he would confer with the state’s fair and exposition division before a decision is made on the agenda.”

Read the article here! (https://venturacountystar-ca.newsmemory.com/…)

INFORMATIONAL RESOURCES

WHO OWNS THE FAIRGROUNDS? “There’s certainly substantial interest by developers,” said Mike Bradbury, who was head of the Ventura Fair Board said in 2009. “But we will not sell the fairgrounds, period. It’s a public treasure and a public trust as far as we’re concerned.” “The original 1909 grant deed by Eugene Preston and Orpha Foster restricted the Ventura County Fairgrounds property use to a public park and place of recreation, specifically as a “pleasure ground for amusement, health and pleasure of the general public”. Key use constraints specified in the historic deed include:

  • Public Recreation: Mandated use strictly as the “Ventura County Seaside Public Park” for public health, recreation, and amusement. 
  • No Private Gain: Explicitly prohibited any individual or corporation from using the property or park for private commercial gain. 
  • Reversion Clause: Stipulated that the land cannot be sold for general private commercial development and carries strict limitations, including potential reversion to the Foster family heirs if terms are violated.
  • Specific Parcels: Portions of the coastal property remain bound by explicit deed restrictions requiring ongoing open-air and recreational access rather than permanent commercial or residential structures.
  • (VCStar) Restriction Laden Fairgrounds Would be Difficult to Unload (this link appears corrupted)
  • (LATimes): Fairgrounds sale won’t be cakewalk
  • (archives) HISTORY OF THE VENTURA COUNTYPARKS DEPARTMENT – A BRIEF HISTORY OF EUGENE P. FOSTER
  • (pressreader) Fam­ily ties in data pitch – State fair­grounds offi­cial’s daugh­ter works for AI-focused com­pany he is pro­mot­ing to revital­ize ven­ues with devel­op­ing tech­no­logy

(VCStar) “A newly launched Orange County company wants to build a parking garage, a landing pad for helicopters and a self-contained data-processing unit the size of a shipping container at the state-owned Ventura County Fairgrounds.

Leaders of Global Stack USA in Santa Ana are proposing building the facilities at as many as 70 fairgrounds across the state by 2030 to create a statewide emergency response network. Company founder Daniel Kang said the group is reaching out to every state-regulated district agricultural association, including the 31st District Agricultural Association — the Ventura County Fairgrounds in Ventura.

The proposed artificial intelligence data-processing unit is not a traditional data center but instead would be fully enclosed, would not use water from a local or outside system and would also not need a cooling tower, Kang said. The exact amount of power consumed is unclear, but Kang said it would be similar to a mid-sized shopping center….

…Global Stack is an infrastructure development company launched in March, according to state records. Its focus is what company CEO Kang calls “emergency resilience.” The idea is to design a connected network of emergency centers on fairgrounds across the state in a project that Kang said would improve response efforts to wildfires, floods and other disasters. It would also provide needed improvements and revenue to underfunded, often deteriorated fairgrounds.…

…An agenda item involving a proposed Global Stack lease for the facilities at the Tulare County Fairgrounds on July 21 drew a packed house of angry residents. They vented concerns about draining water resources, unknown health impacts, noise pollution and a litany of other issues. Some carried signs. Some punctuated their comments with profanities.

“This will affect families,” said area resident Natalie Ortiz in a live-streamed meeting. “Tulare does not need a data center or whatever you want to call it. We don’t need it, not now, not ever.”

  • (oxnardusa) Tech company eyes fairgrounds for data unit.
  • (kvpr.org) The company doesn’t call them data centers. But Valley residents are suspicious.
  • (thebusinessjournal.com) IS IT A DATA CENTER? TULARE FAIRGROUNDS TABLES GLOBAL STACK PROPOSAL
  • (thesungazette) Residents rally against Global Stack proposal in Tulare: “The agenda originally listed the item as an action to approve a rental agreement between the 24th District Agricultural Association (DAA) and Global Stack. Early in the meeting, however, board leadership announced no vote would be taken and that the item would instead be tabled pending additional information, a clarification that did little to calm the room. Attendees repeatedly yelled “nobody wants this” throughout the meeting.

_________________________________________________________________________

Top * Fair action * City Action * State Action * Fed Action *

CITY/COUNTY ACTIONS: Monterey Park has just banned data centers from their city! Let’s get in front of this issue before it lands on our own doorsteps. Email your city council and county supervisors that we don’t want data centers here.

Watch this great video here (https://fb.watch/HH24_BiGkO)

ACTION: Email your city councilmember/supervisor about your own concerns about data centers and the possibility on one landing in our fairgrounds. Min. script: “Good morning! I’m calling from [zip code] and I would like [Assemblymember/Senator______] to create emergency legislation that would prevent the placement of data centers of any size on state property, including fairgrounds.“

Tell them that other locales have turned down the fairground scheme and ask them to enact a city-wide ban on data centers similar to the one just passed in Monterey Park. (Read the full text of that measure here: https://montereyparkca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3073/files/attachment/793 – it starts on page 5) 

Remind those who are up for election for CITY offices in November that this is a really important issue to you, and their support or opposition with inform how you vote.

(Example: Ventura – your city’s results will differ) There are four Ventura Council members running for re-election in November! We need to WITHHOLD votes and ENDORSEMENTS from those candidates who refuse to get onboard with a ban on data centers!

  • District 1: Liz Campos 
  • District 4: Mayor Jeannette Sanchez-Palacios 
  • District 5: Bill McReynolds 
  • District 6: Jim Duran (not running in mid-terms)

What happened in Monterey Park?

(dailyupdate) “A small city outside Los Angeles just did something no other place in America has ever done — and it wasn’t close. Voters in Monterey Park, California approved Measure NDC in a June 2026 special election, making it the first US city to enact a permanent ban on data centers through a ballot measure. The margin: roughly 86% in favor. That’s not a squeaker. That’s a community speaking with one voice.

The reason behind the vote is simple, and it’s one a lot of families across the country will recognize. Data centers are enormous, around-the-clock power and water guzzlers. They strain local electricity grids, drive up utility rates for everyone nearby, draw heavily on drinking water for cooling, and can foul the air with backup generators. Residents of Monterey Park — a city of about 60,000 — decided they didn’t want their air quality, their water supply, or their monthly bills sacrificed so a tech company could park a server farm in their backyard.

What makes this remarkable is that they didn’t wait for a city council fight or a zoning board to maybe-someday act. They put it directly on the ballot and made the ban permanent. No expiration date. No quiet reversal after the news cameras leave.

It lands at a moment when data centers are exploding across the country to feed the AI boom, and towns everywhere are waking up to what that actually costs them — higher power bills, drained reservoirs, and dirtier air, often with few local jobs to show for it. Monterey Park just handed those communities a blueprint.”

The question now: how many cities follow? Check out this list here! Remind those who are up for election for CITY offices in November that this is a really important issue to you, and their support or opposition with inform how you vote.

_________________________________________________________________________

Top * Fair action * City Action * State Action * Fed Action *

FEDERAL ACTIONS: Ask our legislators to support HR 9442/S.4214 – Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act.

Watch this video here.

None of our federal legislators have signed on as cosponsors yet, even though the legislation was introduced in March.
Either use this form from Food and Water Watch (https://act.foodandwaterwatch.org/page/92233/action/1), use our script or one of your own.

Minimum script for representatives: I’m calling from [zip code] and I am wondering why [Rep. _____] is not a cosponsor for AOC’s HR 9442 – Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act yet.

Minimum script for senators: I’m calling from [zip code] and I am wondering why [Sen. _____] is not a cosponsor for Sen. Sanders’s S.4214 – Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act yet.

More script if you want it: It was introduced in March, and we are learning more about the dangers of these centers every day from the lived experiences of fellow Americans. What is [he/she] doing to protect us, our communities, our environment and our privacy from these companies?

CONTACTS:

_________________________________________________________________________

Top * Fair action * City Action * State Action * Fed Action *

STATE ACTIONS: Tell your legislators that we’re taking the lead locally if they can’t effectively regulate these monsters, and tell Newsom to step up like Pennsylvania’s Gov. Shapiro has done!

Tracking state-level data center legislation across the United States

Here is a quick script for Governor Newsom. (See section below on Governor Shapiro.)

Min. email script: Dear Governor Newsom, I have just (watched a news report about/read about) Governor Shapiro’s Exec­ut­ive Order 2026-05, which creates a basic level of safety, economic justice and transparency for the residents of Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, our legislature is struggling to pass some sort of piecemeal safety net. California should be the leader in this sort of action, but we’ve fallen behind. Please issue your own emergency executive order similar to his, as these centers pose eminent risks to our communities.

Contact: https://www.gov.ca.gov/contact/

Here are three types of scripts you can modify for your use for our state legislators.

Minimum call script: I’m calling from [zip code] and I am want [Assemblymember/Senator ____] to create emergency legislation instituting a moratorium on all other data centers until comprehensive regulations can be put in place to protect people, communities, and the environment.

Longer call script: I’m calling from [zip code] and I am want [Assemblymember/Senator ____] to know that we are now working on creating AI data center bans locally. We’ve looked over the current state legislation – there a lot proposing monitoring requirements for centers once they’re built, but there are few requiring strict standards and effective penalties for non-compliance for new centers. We’re looking for 100% clean energy standards, strict water use limits, noise control, setbacks from sensitive uses, restrictions against the use of ag lands and greenfields, absolute transparency in contract negotiations and regulations governing cleanup and removal in case of abandonment. It was only recently that CA finally passed laws requiring fossil fuel corporations to cap their abandoned wells and to create buffer zones from their facilities to protect schools and homes. We’re still waiting for a “polluter pays” law to hold fossil fuel companies liable for the harms they’ve done to our environment. Why would we allow a whole new type of polluting industry into our communities with so few guardrails? We also know that the profits from these centers would largely flow to multinational corporations and investors, certainly not to us, though we’d suffer the consequences of their operation.

Longer email script: RE: Petition for Legislative and Regulatory Action Regarding Data Center Energy Infrastructure Costs: I am writing to formally request the immediate drafting and passage of state legislation that mandate data centers to fully fund 100% of their own energy infrastructure, transmission upgrade, and generation expansion costs, with an explicit prohibition on passing any of these financial burdens onto residential and small-business ratepayers or contributing to global warming. The rapid expansion of data centers poses a severe threat to local utility affordability. While federal standards and regional market grid rules—such as those governing the PJM Interconnection market region—remain voluntary or highly fragmented, our local ratepayers are being unfairly exposed to rising monthly bills. 

Data centers demand unprecedented volumes of electricity and grid capacity. When utilities upgrade transmission lines, build new substations, or procure extra generation to meet this massive demand, current regulatory frameworks allow those capital expenditures to be rolled into the general rate base. This forces everyday consumers to subsidize the operational costs of multi-billion-dollar technology corporations. To eliminate this uneven enforcement and protect public ratepayers, I urge your agency to sponsor or support a policy framework that includes the following enforceable pillars:

  • Mandatory “User-Pays” Capital Models:
    • Data center developers must be legally categorized as unique high-density loads required to pay all direct and indirect interconnectivity costs upfront.
  • Strict Cost-Allocation Walls: 
    • State utilities commissions must be legally barred from approving any rate case that socializes grid upgrade costs driven by data center demand across the general residential ratepayer pool.
  • Proportional Clean Energy Procurement: 
    • Data centers must independently finance and secure their own dedicated renewable energy generation sources to prevent them from cannibalizing local capacity and triggering fossil-fuel plant extensions that drive up regional capacity market prices.
  • Mandatory Cost-Impact Transparency: 
    • Require utilities to explicitly break down and publicize “data center cost impacts” on all future integrated resource plans (IRPs) and rate case filings.
  • Mandatory mitigation of Infrasound/Low-Frequency Noise and Water use issues.

As public servants and regulatory oversight officials, your primary duty is to protect the economic well-being of the citizens within your jurisdiction. Allowing voluntary grid pledges or corporate promises to dictate our local energy prices is an unsustainable approach that actively harms working families. We require binding, statutory protections that isolate everyday consumers from the infrastructure costs of the data industry.

Thank you for your immediate attention to this critical economic and regulatory issue. I look forward to your formal response regarding the steps your office will take to introduce these necessary legislative protections. So please tell your committees to get to work on creating meaningful laws that protect your constituents, our communities and the environment, because we are now going to make it very hard for these data centers to exist.

CONTACTS:

We wish Governor Newsom would do what Pennsylvania’s Gov. Shapiro has just done!

(pressreader) “Har­ris­burg, PA – Today, Gov­ernor Josh Sha­piro signed Exec­ut­ive Order 2026-05, dir­ect­ing Com­mon­wealth agen­cies to require all data cen­ter pro­pos­als apply­ing for per­mits with the Com­mon­wealth to com­ply with the Gov­ernor’s Respons­ible Infra­struc­ture Devel­op­ment (GRID) Require­ments, block­ing spec­u­lat­ive, irre­spons­ible data cen­ter projects from mov­ing for­ward, giv­ing local com­munit­ies more power over data cen­ter devel­op­ment, and pro­tect­ing Pennsylvania res­id­ents. The Exec­ut­ive Order dir­ects the Depart­ment of Envir­on­mental Pro­tec­tion (DEP) to eval­u­ate per­mit applic­a­tions from pro­posed data cen­ters only if developers have made a leg­ally bind­ing com­mit­ment to meet the Gov­ernor’s GRID Require­ments and have received local approval...
(Listed below are some of the new requirements)

  • The GRID Require­ments stip­u­late that developers must:
  • Pay the full cost of new elec­tri­city gen­er­a­tion, trans­mis­sion, dis­tri­bu­tion, and other infra­struc­ture needed to power their project without shift­ing costs to Pennsylvania house­holds and busi­nesses;
  • Com­mit to open, trans­par­ent engage­ment with local res­id­ents and lead­ers includ­ing detailed com­munity out­reach plans that include noti­fic­a­tion to impacted local gov­ern­ments, pub­lic meet­ings, and con­sulta­tion early enough in the pro­cess to allow mean­ing­ful pub­lic input on major design decisions;
  • Hire and train local work­ers and enter into mean­ing­ful com­munity bene­fit agree­ments that invest in local pri­or­it­ies, from schools and infra­struc­ture to long- term eco­nomic devel­op­ment; and
  • Meet the highest stand­ards for envir­on­mental pro­tec­tion, includ­ing strict water con­ser­va­tion require­ments.
  • The Pennsylvania Depart­ment of Com­munity and Eco­nomic Devel­op­ment (DCED) will release best prac­tices for muni­cip­al­it­ies on zon­ing stand­ards and com­munity bene­fit agree­ments when enga­ging with data cen­ters.
  • The use of nondis­clos­ure agree­ments with data cen­ter projects is not per­miss­ible.
  • The Sha­piro Admin­is­tra­tion has cre­ated a pub­licly access­ible map con­tain­ing all pro­posed data cen­ter projects in Pennsylvania that have en­gaged with DEP. On the map, res­id­ents can eas­ily track the status of per­mits as they are reviewed by DEP. The map will be updated reg­u­larly as DEP becomes aware of new pro­pos­als.
  • The Spe­cial Coun­sel for Energy Afford­ab­il­ity, the Sha­piro Admin­is­tra­tion’s energy watch­dog, will engage with the Pennsylvania Pub­lic Util­ity Com­mis­sion (PUC) to ensure data cen­ter devel­op­ment does not shift energy costs onto Pennsylvania house­holds and busi­nesses — and does not com­prom­ise the reli­ab­il­ity of their elec­tri­city ser­vice.
  • the Spe­cial Coun­sel will sup­port the devel­op­ment of pro­to­cols to ensure that, in the event the power grid is stressed, data cen­ters lose elec­tric ser­vice before other cus­tom­ers.
  • the Spe­cial Coun­sel will work with the PUC to estab­lish pro­ced­ures for elec­tric util­it­ies to charge data cen­ters – and not other cus­tom­ers – for the costs of “reli­ab­il­ity back­stop” auc­tions that PJM con­ducts to secure new power plants to meet data cen­ter demand.
  • the Spe­cial Coun­sel will sup­port the PUC’s work to develop pro­to­cols for ensur­ing that data cen­ter elec­tri­city demand is accur­ately fore­cas­ted and trans­par­ently dis­closed. The Exec­ut­ive Order sends a clear mes­sage: developers must demon­strate that a project can be developed respons­ibly and the com­munity approves of the project in order to move for­ward.

This is the complicated legislative landscape for data centers that CA is navigating now.

(Canary Media)

  • Emissions & Climate Risk: 
    • (SB 253) – Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act PASSED in 2023 requires large corporations doing business in California (including data center operators) to publicly disclose their Scopes 1, 2, and 3 greenhouse gas emissions. It does not limit emissions, it just penalizes them strictly for failing to accurately measure and report those emissions. 
  • Energy Costs & Siting: 

(https://youtube.com/shorts/2hjKX2ho-lo?si=hl09yDB_JpC-QE3U)

  • AB 222 – Data centers: power usage effectiveness: cost shifts. In suspension (FAILED). Would have required data centers to publicize their power use
  • AB 1577 – Data centers: reporting. Update: Ordered to third reading.
    • it “would require data centers with an installed electrical capacity of 500 kilowatts or more to submit monthly operational data to the California Energy Commission, including power usage effectiveness, waste heat data, and onsite energy generation. The bill would require that the same operational data be submitted to local agencies when applying for discretionary permits or land-use approvals.
    • In addition, while presently removed from the express monthly reporting requirements in recent bill amendments, data centers would need to report on total annual water consumption and annual potable water consumption when applying for discretionary permits. Notably, the bill expressly authorizes use of information submitted for discretionary permits for various purposes, including, but not limited to, “environmental review,” such as under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).“
  • SB 58 – Air quality: standard: hydrogen sulfide. In Assembly, ordered to third reading. This would providincentives for them to use more clean energy.
  • SB 57 – This bill originally aimed to protect energy customers from shouldering infrastructure costs driven by data centers now merely lets regulators figure out if that is happening. (PASSED 10/11/25)
  • SB 886 – California Technology Innovation and Ratepayer Protection Act – Update: Ordered to third reading. “It would require the California Public Utilities Commission to set rules for data centers of at least 25 megawatts to fully cover the costs they impose on customers of the state’s three major utilities. Data centers would pay for the new power generation and grid upgrades they need, along with a ​“reasonable share” of the fees utilities collect for wildfire mitigation, environmental programs, and other social initiatives.” Global Stack says their units are designed to draw 8 to 10 megawatts, which may be coincidental, or a way to avoid this legislation’s rules.
  • SB 887 – Environmental leadership development projects: data centers: clean energy powerplant projects. Update: Ordered to third reading. 1) confirms that CEQA categorical exemptions do not apply to data center projects and 2) creates an expedited judicial review pathway for projects meeting clean energy and water efficiency standards under California’s Environmental Leadership Development Project program “if they commit to high standards and serving communities,” Padilla said. Data centers seeking this special treatment must get 100% of their hourly electricity consumption from carbon-free resources within five years, 75% of it newly built. And they’ll need to draw from zero-carbon backup power — most likely batteries — when the grid is under stress, rather than using diesel generators, which are installed by almost all data centers. Developers would also have to pay for grid interconnection costs in advance and commit to a community benefits plan...[the Data Center Coalition] argues that SB 887’s clean power requirements are virtually impossible for data centers to meet. ​“We don’t see it as a streamlining mechanism, because those standards are not attainable,” said Khara Boender, Western government affairs director for the group.”
  • Water usage
    • AB-93 – Water resources: data centers – (FAILED – Vetoed by Gov. 10/11/25) This legislation mandated disclosure of water use by data center operators, although now in a way that may elude public access. In his veto message, Newsom said he was reluctant to impose requirements on data centers, “without understanding the full impact on businesses and the consumers of their technology.” Cal Matter published this article “Data centers are guzzling California’s water. We have no idea how much.”
    • AB 2469 – Data centers: water use disclosures – Update: ordered to third reading. “Prohibits a city, including a charter city, county, or city and county (city or county) from approving construction of a new, or expansion of an existing, data center unless an applicant for a data center project provides the local agency with detailed information regarding the data center’s water use and meets other requirements related to workforce and infrastructure for the data center.” It includes a “water scarcity plan” as a report that includes measures to be implemented under different drought scenarios defined by the U.S. Drought Monitor to reduce water use.
    • AB 2619 – Water resources: data centers – Update: ordered to third reading. It would require a person who owns or operates a data center, prior to applying to a city or a county for an initial business license, equivalent instrument, or permit, to provide its water supplier, under penalty of perjury, an estimate of the expected water use, the anticipated source of water, and the data centers projected water use volume for the maximum day, maximum month, and average year.
  • AI Safety standards:
    • Gov. Newsom signed SB 53, an AI safety law, which has nothing to do with people living near data centers, which is being copied by other states – it “increases information that AI makers must share with the public, including in a transparency report that must include the intended uses of a model, restrictions or conditions of using a model, how a company assesses and addresses catastrophic risk, and whether those efforts were reviewed by an independent third party.“
    • However, these is the important part for those who have to live next to them. “The new law falls short no matter how well it is enforced, critics say. It does not include in its definition of catastrophic risk issues like the impact of AI systems on the environment, their ability to spread disinformation, or their potential to perpetuate historical systems of oppression like sexism or racism. The law also does not apply to AI systems used by governments to profile people or assign them scores that can lead to a denial of government services or fraud accusations, and only targets companies that make $500 million in annual revenue.”

_________________________________________________________________________

RESOURCES:

More resources on state legislation:

(Mayer/Brown) PROPOSED CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION AIMS TO RESHAPE LAND USE APPROVALS FOR DATA CENTERS AND RENEWABLE ENERGY AND STORAGE PROJECTS

A data center ban means we will protect our community for current and future generations, by:

  • Preventing higher electricity rates from being passed on to residents 
  • Safeguarding our limited supply of water 
  • Reducing air pollution and climate impacts 
  • Mitigating 24/7 noise pollution generated by data centers
  • Preserving our quality of life

Data centers burden communities with:

  • Massive energy use and emissions: Data centers consume enormous amounts of electricity, increasing greenhouse gas emissions and placing additional strain on an already overburdened power grid.
  • Higher electricity bills for residents: Increased demand on the grid can drive up electricity costs for local households and small businesses.
  • Noise pollution: Large cooling systems and backup generators operate continuously, creating persistent noise, both audible and sub-sonic, that impacts nearby neighborhoods.
  • Lowered property values: Industrial-scale facilities can reduce nearby property values due to noise, visual impacts, and perceived health and safety risks.
  • Public costs for utility system upgrades: Taxpayers may be on the hook for costly upgrades to power, water, and infrastructure needed to support the facility.
  • Very few permanent jobs: Despite their size, data centers typically create only a small number of long-
  • term, on-site jobs once construction is complete.
  • Most benefits go overseas, not to local economies: Profits largely flow to multinational corporations and investors, while local communities absorb the environmental and infrastructure impacts.
  • Corporate welfare – tax losses due to localities incentivizing data center construction, privatizing public goods and funds.
  • The potential for abandoned facilities in the future, with no structured removal/cleanup costs assumed by the corporations themselves.

Science is struggling to keep up with the effects of data centers:

  • (mdpi.com) Infrasound and Low-Frequency Noise in Data Center Environments: A Narrative Review Toward Health-Protective Acoustic Design Standards – Excellent companion article:
    • “The research gap identified in this review is not permanent. It is a consequential but addressable absence of data, the filling of which would enable both health-protective action and better-informed engineering practice. The mechanistic convergence across vestibular, autonomic, and cognitive pathways (Section 4.2 and Section 4.3) suggests these may not be independent effects but components of a broader exposure–response phenotype.” It also addresses “key differences between wind turbine acoustic exposures and those anticipated in data center environments.“
    • Interesting observation for older people: “Individual sensitivity to LFN is substantially more variable than sensitivity to mid-range frequencies. Leventhall [9] estimated that approximately 2.5% of the population may have a low-frequency hearing threshold at least 12 dB more sensitive than the population average, corresponding to approximately one million individuals in the 50–59 age group within the EU-15 countries alone. This subpopulation generates a disproportionate share of LFN complaints and may experience meaningful physiological effects at levels that are inaudible to and dismissed by the general population. The onset of LFN sensitivity tends to occur in middle age, creating a progressive vulnerability among experienced workers and established community residents.”
  • (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) Infrasound in Biology and Medicine: Insights into Mechanisms, Health Outcomes and Research Perspectives – A Narrative Review Another article here. It is not specific to data centers, but discusses physical issues related to infrasound:

More information sources for activists and comment-making:

(https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VdnmPEOiHJc)

Watch this excellent video here: https://www.instagram.com/reels/DZdNkvuD2Xx/

This is another great one, and she brings up additional points on how the competition for these centers will drive warfare over rare earth minerals and their potential for increased surveillance capacity. (https://www.instagram.com/reels/DXNA9eXAjfH/)

How tech billionaires are using NDAs to hide data center deals. 70% are against data centers in their communities. (https://www.instagram.com/reels/DbL99V0FZfo/)

(https://youtu.be/5p426fSlYH4)

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu2DTsFg1sc) Electrical rates are going up, very few people are employed in these monsters, and people are upset about the noise, vibrations, energy use, dropping property values, water use and future transmission lines being unsightly.

Leave a Reply