New Hampshire legislators are advocating for stronger regulation of data center development to address environmental and energy grid impacts.

New Hampshire should welcome responsible innovation and economic development. But projects with extraordinary electricity and water demands and potential community impacts must be evaluated carefully, transparently and locally.

Data centers fall squarely into that category.

Across the country, concern about unchecked data center development is a bipartisan policy issue. A recent national survey found that majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents oppose new data centers in their communities. Democratic-led New York enacted a pause on permits for the largest facilities, while Republican-led Texas temporarily halted new grid connections pending audits of electricity and water demands. Republican-led South Dakota has required large data centers to cover infrastructure costs rather than shifting them onto existing customers.

This is not anti-technology. This is bipartisan concern for accountability and local control.

New Hampshire should proceed cautiously. Although Seabrook makes our state a substantial electricity generator, residents still depend on a constrained regional grid and pay some of the nation's highest electricity prices. New England already faces growing demand, winter fuel constraints and the need for costly new generation and transmission.

A single large data center can demand hundreds of megawatts around the clock. Without strong policy protection, families and small businesses could be forced to help pay for new power plants, substations and transmission lines. Research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas found that large new data center loads can significantly increase generation costs and wholesale electricity prices. The precise effect depends on utility contracts and who pays for new infrastructure—which is why developers must disclose their projected demand and bear the costs they create.

The proposed House amendment to Senate Bill 439 would have sharply curtailed local authority by making data centers a "use by right" in commercial and industrial districts and barring municipalities from imposing restrictions more stringent than those applied to other businesses in the same district.

The State Senate had already removed the original bill's key safeguards—including requirements addressing electrical capacity, noise, setbacks and screening. That weakened version passed the Senate 16-8, with all 16 Republican state senators voting in favor. SB 439 ultimately died on the House table, but the fundamental question remains unresolved: Will decisions affecting a community's land, water, electricity and future remain with its people, or be dictated by our State Legislature and without responsible controls?

New Hampshire needs a better, more responsible plan.

Data centers are not comparable to hardware stores, research facilities, offices or warehouses. Their electricity demand, cooling systems, water use, wastewater, backup generators, noise reduction and infrastructure requirements are fundamentally different.

First, preserve local control. Our towns know their water supplies, roads, energy limitations and neighborhoods. Local governments must retain authority to determine whether a data center is appropriate and establish conditions addressing setbacks, noise, water use, pollution, emergency services and infrastructure costs. That authority reflects New Hampshire's independent spirit and tradition of self-government.

Second, enact a temporary moratorium on new large-scale data center permits. A pause would give state and local officials time to assess grid capacity, update zoning ordinances and establish baseline protections. It is not a permanent ban, but a responsible response while long-term consequences remain uncertain.

Third, require transparency and prohibit secret deals. Non-disclosure agreements should never prevent public officials from telling residents how much electricity or water a project would require, what incentives are being offered or what costs taxpayers may inherit. Proprietary information can be protected without concealing decisions involving public resources.

Fourth, build a responsible and affordable energy plan. Data centers should secure more sustainable and affordable power. Developers must invest in the generation, transmission and grid improvements needed to serve their facilities without passing those costs to existing ratepayers. These investments should strengthen New Hampshire's energy future and economy, not force families and small businesses to compete for limited capacity.

Finally, require binding community benefit agreements. Data center corporations must pay their fair share of water, electricity, roads and emergency-service costs. Agreements should fund local workforce development, create pathways into skilled trades and offset unavoidable community and environmental impacts.

Water protection is critical. Data center cooling wastewater can contain concentrated minerals and treatment chemicals. PFAS may be present in server components, fire-suppression systems and some cooling technologies. While evidence of routine direct PFAS discharges from operating data centers is still developing, leaks, spills, equipment disposal and improper wastewater handling create credible pathways into groundwater. We must consider closed-loop systems that reuse cooling wastewater and mitigate risks to local water supplies.

Technology will advance. The question is whether New Hampshire residents will control how that development affects their communities—or whether the State Legislature will allow powerful corporations to make those decisions behind closed doors.

Our independent spirit demands better. State government should establish strong minimum protections, but decisions affecting a community's health, economy and future must remain where they belong—with the people who live here.