Everywhere you look, there is a growing concern over the threats posed by A.I. data centers. We have relied on data centers for years, but the burgeoning construction of new, more massive ones has hit a nerve in an increasingly cost-conscious America.
Until recently, when we asked where our stored electronic information went, we were told “the cloud.” Of course, there is no information “cloud”; our data is stored in computers. Stored in computers that are housed all over the country – indeed sometimes the world.
The number of computers to store our data, process online transactions, and handle our internet information requests and computations, is mind-boggling. With the rise of the use of A.I., so-called “artificial intelligence,” the projected demand for computer space and capabilities is mushrooming and accelerating.
With that demand comes the need for more and more access to computers, computers that are stored in massive buildings, and now being built all around the nation at an increasing speed. Those computer buildings are known as “data centers” and their thirst for energy and often water (for cooling) is virtually insatiable.
The construction and use of these data centers is driving a rise in utility rates all across the nation and New York is not immune. Beyond those costs these massive data centers can be “energy hogs.” According to New York regulators, the electricity demand of proposed data center projects totals more than 11,000 MW, equivalent to around 1.5 times the demand of all New York State households combined.
During the past legislative session, lawmakers took a step toward slowing down the data center construction “race” to allow time to formulate policies to ensure the public is protected. The legislation, the Responsible Data Center Development Act, places a one-year moratorium on data center development while reasonable safeguards are created.
The “ball” will soon be in Governor Hochul’s “court.” It is the governor who will decide if this legislative “pause” button gets pushed.
From the public’s perspective, it makes perfect sense to take a breath before embarking headlong into a data centers construction boom. If the bill is enacted, New York policy makers will have one year to put adequate safeguarding in place. Those safeguards should these five proposals:
Insulate the public from getting stuck with the bill if the data center flops or falls short. New Yorkers should not be left “holding the bag” if data center projects go belly up or greatly underperform.
Make data centers’ permits and contracts available to the public without secrecy. One national review of data centers found that required permitting for data centers were shielded from public disclosures. New York has such exemptions in its open public records law that can be used to keep these contracts secret. They must not be.
There must be regular, ongoing monitoring and public reporting of water use, as well as noise impacts.
Ensure that not one residential utility ratepayer dollar should be – directly or indirectly — used to subsidize data centers. Data centers are expected to need a fantastic amount of electricity; they must not be driving up utility rates for New Yorkers.
Not one electron from the existing grid should be used to power data centers. Another way to jack up utility rates to subsidize data centers is by diverting current electricity in the grid to power data centers. Then ratepayers are on the hook to come up with new energy capacity.
Of course, none of these protections can take place without the governor’s approval of the Responsible Data Center Development Act. New Yorkers have heard a lot about the need to tackle skyrocketing utility rates. This legislation does something about it.
Friday evening the state Assembly wrapped up its 2026 legislative session, a day after the state Senate. In many ways the legislative session was a typical one: The budget was late (the latest since 2010); lawmakers held campaign fundraising events in the Capital District; and hundreds of bills were approved at the end of session in a flurry of activity in both houses.
What was different was that the 58-days-late budget, which was due April 1st, was so late that it impacted the Legislature’s ability to deliberate over non-budget-related legislation. If the budget had been on time, according to the Legislature’s calendar, lawmakers would have had two months to tackle non-budget issues. This year, the Legislature had one week.
As a result, the final tally shows that they fell short on the number of bills passed.
Last year, for the full 2025 session, the two houses agreed on 856 bills. This year, fewer bills passed. The Senate and Assembly agreed on 759 bills. The drop off represented the lowest total approved by both houses – outside the Covid-shortened session of 2020 – since the Democrats took control of the Legislature in 2019.
Of course, the Legislature could have stayed beyond the scheduled end of the session, but that would have cut into campaign time. With many legislators facing primaries at the end of the month, few wanted to hang around and miss time on the campaign trail.
So, the budget fight not only ended way late, but it also reduced the amount of time lawmakers had to figure out how to handle other problems. Some of those unanswered problems are large and others small.
For example, legislation designed to plug a loophole in the state’s lobbying disclosure law failed to pass. Current law requires the reporting of lobbying to influence laws, executive actions, agency decisions, and efforts to influence local governments, but not for efforts to influence the governor’s appointments to agencies or the courts. Legislation to require disclosure of that lobbying was approved in the Senate, but the Assembly version never came up for a vote.
The bill had been approved by the Senate and was sponsored in the Assembly by the relevant committee chairperson. Normally, widespread support for a non-controversial measure sponsored by a senior member of the house is a “go.” But the Assembly blocked a floor vote on the legislation. Why? No one is saying.
Of course, there were other more controversial bills that were casualties of Assembly inaction. One was legislation to reduce the amount of plastic packaging in New York.
According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), the state is facing a growing trash disposal crisis. The DEC has recommended that the state adopt a “producer responsibility” approach and urged action to, among other things, reduce packaging wastes.
The Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act legislation would have done just that. Despite having a majority of the Assembly signing on as sponsors of the legislation, the bill never came up for a vote. Why? The Speaker said that, despite backing by a majority of the Assembly as sponsors, the bill did not have the votes.
The governor’s use of her budget powers to dominate the session to get what she wants also squeezes out solutions to problems that could have been addressed. New Yorkers will never know whether if state lawmakers had more time they would have addressed the issues mentioned, or other important unaddressed legislation. When common-sense legislation stalls year-after-year, the explanation that “the clock ran out” gets stale.
Both strategies – the governor’s decision to hold budget negotiations “hostage” until lawmakers agree to her non-budget policy proposals, as well as the Assembly’s tactic of limiting legislative approvals – mean that legislative action gets reduced. As servants of the public, both the governor and the Assembly should at least explain their strategies to voters and taxpayers who deserve answers.
