On March 10, Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Dominic Butchko submitted written testimony to the Environment and Transportation Committee in opposition to HB 1411 – Data Center Planning and Transparency Act.
This bill requires large-scale data center operators to report their environmental and resource impacts to to certain State and local agencies and and mandates that each jurisdiction with over 10,000 residents create formal plans for managing these facilities by 2027. In doing so, it establishes a costly statewide approach to addressing data centers that undercuts local land use authority, imposes an unfunded planning mandate, and is duplicative of work already underway in many jurisdictions.
Data centers are rapidly becoming a cornerstone of the modern digital economy, supporting everything from cloud computing and artificial intelligence to cybersecurity and online commerce. While these facilities can bring economic opportunity and new tax base to local communities, they also place significant demands on infrastructure such as electricity, water, and transportation systems.
Accordingly, counties emphasize the need for a collaborative approach that respects local planning processes while addressing the infrastructure realities that shape where and how data centers can be responsibly developed.
Counties remain committed to partnering with the State on a balanced,
workable framework for data center development—one that supports economic competitiveness while protecting community character and ensuring infrastructure realities are addressed transparently. However, as drafted, HB 1411 misses the mark by preempting local discretion, imposing an expensive unfunded mandate, and duplicating county-led efforts already underway.
More on MACo’s Advocacy:
workable framework for data center development—one that supports economic competitiveness while protecting community character and ensuring infrastructure realities are addressed transparently. However, as drafted, HB 1411 misses the mark by preempting local discretion, imposing an expensive unfunded mandate, and duplicating county-led efforts already underway.