Data Centers: Constitutional Crisis and Energy Burdens

America’s hyperscale data center boom is testing the limits of constitutional law, public infrastructure, and national security all at once.

By Cherokee Schill (Rowan Lóchrann – Pen Name), Solon Vesper AI, Aether Lux AI, and Resonant AI

Executive Summary

America’s data center expansion has evolved into both a constitutional and national security crisis. Hyperscale facilities now drive over 90 percent of new electricity demand in key grid regions, pushing capacity prices up 174 percent and adding roughly $9.3 billion in annual costs to household ratepayers. Through preferential rate structures, opaque utility settlements, and political lobbying, Big Tech has learned to privatize energy profits while socializing infrastructure burdens. These arrangements likely violate state gift clauses and tax uniformity provisions in Arizona, Washington, and Pennsylvania—legal safeguards meant to prevent corporate subsidies from public funds. Meanwhile, the centralization of compute power into a few subsidized mega-nodes creates critical single points of failure vulnerable to cyberattack. Without structural reform—full-cost pricing, transparency, constitutional enforcement, and national security standards—America risks trading constitutional integrity for digital convenience.

Who Profits, Who Pays: How Influence Rewrites the Bill

Hyperscale data centers have redefined the economics of the power grid. Through direct settlements with utilities and aggressive political advocacy, major technology firms are reshaping how costs are distributed—often at the expense of the public. What begins as a negotiation for “economic development” quietly becomes a mechanism to shift billions in infrastructure and energy expenses from private ledgers to household bills.

• “Data center load growth is the primary reason for… high prices.” — Monitoring Analytics, PJM Market Monitor (June 25, 2025) (monitoringanalytics.com)
• “Data Center Coalition has spent $123,000 [year-to-date] lobbying in 2025.” — OpenSecrets (2025) (opensecrets.org)
• “A PAC tied to the Data Center Coalition donated $165,500 to Virginia lawmakers between Election Day and the January session start.” — Business Insider (Feb. 2025) (businessinsider.com)
• “I&M filed a joint settlement with… AWS, Microsoft, Google, [and] the Data Center Coalition.” — Indiana Michigan Power (Nov. 22, 2024) (indianamichiganpower.com)

These lobbying efforts and settlement agreements have a clear throughline: political influence converts into preferential rate design. Utilities, eager for large-load customers, negotiate bespoke contracts that lower corporate costs but transfer the resulting shortfall to the wider rate base. As a result, families and small businesses—those with the least ability to negotiate—end up subsidizing the most profitable corporations on earth.

The concentration of economic and political leverage within the data center sector has implications beyond rate structures. It distorts public investment priorities, diverts funds from community infrastructure, and erodes transparency in public-utility governance. This interplay of influence, subsidy, and opacity is how constitutional limits begin to buckle: the public bears the cost, while the private sector holds the power.

How Hyperscale Shifts Its Power Bill to You

The rapid expansion of hyperscale data centers doesn’t just consume electricity—it redirects the economics of public infrastructure. When utilities offer discounted rates or subsidies to these facilities, they create a financial vacuum that must be filled elsewhere. The difference is redistributed through capacity markets, grid upgrades, and general rate increases paid by households and small businesses.

• “Data center load… resulted in an increase in the 2025/2026 [auction] revenues of $9,332,103,858… 174.3 percent.” — Monitoring Analytics (June 25, 2025) (monitoringanalytics.com)
• “Data centers now account for over 90% of PJM’s projected new power demand.” — Reuters (Aug. 7, 2025) (reuters.com)
• “Data center electricity usage… 176 TWh (2023)… estimated 325–580 TWh by 2028.” — U.S. DOE/LBNL report (Dec. 20, 2024; LBNL news Jan. 15, 2025) (energy.gov)
• “Data centers must pay at least their marginal costs of service to avoid shifting the burden inequitably to existing customers.” — JLARC Data Centers in Virginia (Dec. 9, 2024) (jlarc.virginia.gov)
• “More than $2 billion [in subsidies]… average cost per job of $1.95 million.” — Good Jobs First, Money Lost to the Cloud (Oct. 2016; cited widely in 2020s policy debates) (goodjobsfirst.org)
• “Tax exemption for… computer data center equipment.” — Ohio Rev. Code §122.175 (effective 2019; revised Sept. 30, 2025) (codes.ohio.gov)

The result is a hidden transfer of wealth from local communities to global corporations. Rising capacity costs manifest as higher electric bills and deferred investments in education, transportation, and public safety. Meanwhile, the infrastructure that sustains these data centers—roads, substations, water systems, and emergency services—depends on public funding. The social and environmental costs compound the imbalance: diesel backup generators, thermal discharge, and water depletion concentrate in lower-income areas least equipped to absorb them. In effect, the very neighborhoods least likely to benefit from the digital economy are underwriting its infrastructure.

Gift Clauses and Uniformity: When Deals Breach the Constitution

Every state constitution establishes boundaries on the use of public resources. Gift clauses forbid the donation or subsidy of public funds to private corporations. Uniformity clauses require taxation and public spending to treat all subjects equally. When state or local governments grant data centers preferential rates or tax abatements without a demonstrable, proportional public benefit, they risk crossing those constitutional lines.

• Arizona Gift Clause: “No public body shall make any donation or grant, by subsidy or otherwise, to any… corporation.” — Ariz. Const. art. IX, §7 (Justia Law)
• Washington Gift of Public Funds: “No municipal corporation shall give any money, or property, or loan its credit to any corporation.” — Wash. Const. art. VIII, §7 (mrsc.org)
• Pennsylvania Tax Uniformity: “All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects…” — Pa. Const. art. VIII, §1 (legis.state.pa.us)
• Modern Enforcement Standard: “To comply with the Gift Clause… the consideration must not far exceed the value received.” — Schires v. Carlat, Ariz. Sup. Ct. (2021) (Goldwater Institute)

In practice, these legal protections are often sidestepped through development incentives that appear to serve a “public purpose.” Yet, when the tangible value returned to citizens is outweighed by tax breaks, subsidized power, and free infrastructure, those agreements violate the spirit—and often the letter—of the constitution. Courts have repeatedly found that the promise of economic development alone is not enough to justify public subsidy. The challenge now is enforcing these principles in the digital age, where data centers operate like public utilities but remain privately owned and shielded from accountability.

Mega-Nodes, Mega-Risk: The National Security Cost of Centralization

Centralizing computing power into a small number of hyperscale data centers has reshaped the nation’s risk surface. These mega-nodes have become single points of failure for vast portions of America’s economy and public infrastructure. If one facility is compromised—by cyberattack, physical disruption, or grid instability—the effects cascade through banking, health care, logistics, and government systems simultaneously. The scale of interconnection that once promised efficiency now amplifies vulnerability.

• “Emergency Directive 24-02 [addresses]… nation-state compromise of Microsoft corporate email.” — CISA (Apr. 11, 2024) (cisa.gov)
• “CISA and NSA released Cloud Security Best Practices [CSIs] to improve resilience and segmentation.” — CISA/NSA (2024–2025) (cisa.gov)

Public subsidies have effectively transformed private infrastructure into critical infrastructure. Yet oversight has not kept pace with that reality. The same tax abatements and preferential rates that encourage hyperscale construction rarely include requirements for national-security compliance or regional redundancy. In effect, the public underwrites systems it cannot secure. Federal and state regulators now face an urgent question: should data centers that function as quasi-utilities be held to quasi-constitutional standards of accountability and resilience?

Security, transparency, and distribution must become non-negotiable conditions of operation. Without them, every new subsidy deepens the vulnerability of the very nation whose resources made these facilities possible.

Policy to Restore Constitutional Pricing and Resilience

The constitutional and security challenges posed by hyperscale data centers demand structural correction. Superficial reforms or voluntary reporting won’t suffice; the issue is systemic. Public power, once a shared trust, has been leveraged into private gain through rate manipulation and regulatory asymmetry. The next phase must reestablish constitutional balance—where corporations pay the real cost of the infrastructure they consume, and the public is no longer forced to underwrite their growth.

1. Full marginal-cost pricing: Require utilities to charge data centers the true incremental cost of their load, preventing cross-subsidization.
2. Pay-for-infrastructure or self-supply requirements: Hyperscale facilities must fund their own dedicated generation or grid expansion, ensuring new capacity doesn’t burden ratepayers.
3. Transparent contracts: Mandate public disclosure of all large-load utility agreements, subsidies, and tax arrangements, including rate design and cost allocations.
4. Enforce constitutional clauses: Apply gift and uniformity standards without exemption; audit prior abatements and claw back unlawful subsidies or preferential agreements.
5. National security baselines: Require compliance with CISA and NSA resiliency frameworks—geographic redundancy, segmentation, and zero-trust principles—to secure the digital grid as critical infrastructure.

Policy alignment across state and federal levels is now essential. The laws that govern public utilities must extend to the private entities consuming their majority capacity. Anything less ensures that national resilience continues to erode under the weight of corporate privilege and structural opacity.

Call to Recognition

The pattern is clear: the digital economy’s infrastructure has been built with public funds but without public safeguards. Every subsidy extended, every rate favor granted, and every opaque settlement signed has drawn down the moral and fiscal reserves that sustain constitutional governance. The choice before policymakers is no longer technical—it is civic. Either restore constitutional integrity to the digital grid, or accept a future in which democratic oversight collapses under corporate control.

A republic cannot outsource its digital backbone. When private mega-nodes rely on public grids, the price must be lawful, transparent, and secure. The principles embedded in gift and uniformity clauses are not relics of a slower age—they are the firewall that keeps democracy from becoming a subscription service. Enforce them. Expose the contracts. Make the cost visible. That is how constitutional order adapts to the cloud era and ensures the public remains sovereign over its own infrastructure.

Sources for Verification

Monitoring Analytics, PJM Market Monitor — “2025 Capacity Market Results,” June 25, 2025. monitoringanalytics.com
OpenSecrets — Client filings for Data Center Coalition, 2025. opensecrets.org
Business Insider — “Data Center PAC Donations to Virginia Lawmakers,” Feb. 2025. businessinsider.com
Indiana Michigan Power — “Joint Settlement with Data Center Coalition,” Nov. 22, 2024. indianamichiganpower.com
Utility Dive — “Indiana Large Load Settlements, 2025.” utilitydive.com
Reuters — “Data Centers Drive 90% of New Power Demand,” Aug. 7, 2025. reuters.com
U.S. Department of Energy & Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory — “Energy Use of U.S. Data Centers,” Dec. 2024 / Jan. 2025. energy.gov
JLARC Virginia — “Data Centers in Virginia,” Dec. 9, 2024. jlarc.virginia.gov
Good Jobs First — “Money Lost to the Cloud,” Oct. 2016. goodjobsfirst.org
Ohio Laws — Ohio Revised Code §122.175, revised Sept. 30, 2025. codes.ohio.gov
Arizona Constitution — Art. IX, §7 (Gift Clause). Justia Law
Washington Constitution — Art. VIII, §7 (Gift of Public Funds). mrsc.org
Pennsylvania Constitution — Art. VIII, §1 (Tax Uniformity). legis.state.pa.us
Schires v. Carlat — Arizona Supreme Court, Feb. 8, 2021. goldwaterinstitute.org
CISA — Emergency Directive 24-02, Apr. 11, 2024. cisa.gov
NSA / CISA — “Cloud Security Best Practices,” 2024–2025. cisa.gov

Website | Horizon Accord
Ethical AI advocacy | cherokeeschill.com
Ethical AI coding | GitHub
Connect | LinkedIn
Book | My Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload