In an era when public discourse is dominated by viral outrage and performative political stunts, it is perhaps surprising that a genuinely substantive policy conversation has emerged in Nevada’s gubernatorial race. The subject: data centers, and the complex public policy questions surrounding their construction and operation. Communications expert Michael Schaus, writing in a recent commentary, argues that this development is actually refreshing, even as he acknowledges that much of the rhetoric around the issue is not as carefully reasoned as it should be. A growing number of voters and lawmakers appear to want every planned data center project banned outright, seemingly forever and everywhere, while others simply do not want data centers anywhere near their own neighborhoods. Schaus, however, suggests that such NIMBY-style prohibitionism is not practical in the long run—at least not if society wishes to continue enjoying the benefits of rapid technological advancement. He compares data centers to other major infrastructure projects, such as giant dams built to contain seasonal floods or power lines that deliver electricity to homes. These facilities are simply components of what it takes to keep modern civilization moving forward. Far from existing merely to power artificial intelligence slop, data centers underpin the digital world that most people take for granted. Uploading a photo to Google Drive, streaming a song on Spotify, or allowing OneDrive to back up a client project all depend on data centers performing the marvel of modern cloud computing. Nearly everything done online or on most smartphones ultimately requires some warehouse somewhere, filled with RAM, to keep the digital era functioning smoothly.
Given these realities, Schaus argues that the question is not whether data centers should be built—they must be—but rather where they should be located and what guardrails should be established to ensure they do not become a net drain on local community resources. The answers to those questions depend heavily on the specifics of each project. As The Nevada Independent has recently explained, not all data centers are created equal. Some facilities consume massive amounts of water to feed evaporative cooling systems, a technology that the Southern Nevada Water Authority has already banned. More efficient closed-loop systems are somewhat better, but they still consume scarce water resources, much like other large-scale industrial projects in various sectors. Similarly, power requirements vary greatly from one center to another, and local utilities are already working on ways to protect ordinary ratepayers from the potential cost impacts of increased demand on the electrical grid. In other words, data centers, like any other infrastructure project, come with a mixture of trade-offs and benefits for local communities. While it is easy to focus only on the downsides and ride a populist wave of opposition, Schaus maintains that most legitimate concerns about these projects do not represent insurmountable challenges for the tech industry, lawmakers, or local community leaders. With thoughtful planning and honest public engagement, the negative aspects can be mitigated while the benefits are preserved.
Indeed, there is evidence that pragmatic approaches to data center development are already taking shape. Schaus points to a recent white paper from the Brookings Institution, which highlighted how Microsoft has entered into deals that directly invest in local communities, going well beyond the usual promise of a few thousand construction jobs. Moreover, virtually all of the major industry players—including Meta, Microsoft, and Google—are actively working to make their water usage efficient enough to contribute meaningfully to a local region’s long-term water sustainability goals. This does not mean that every proposed data center should be automatically approved by regulators. But it does demonstrate that sound public policy and informed public discussion can effectively address many of the concerns associated with such construction. The fact that Nevada’s gubernatorial race is on the verge of steering into these kinds of nuanced policy discussions is, Schaus believes, good news for an era of nonstop performative politics. Even more encouraging is that some good-government reforms are already emerging as a direct result of the attention being paid to the issue. Just last week, Governor Joe Lombardo signed an executive order limiting the type of tax incentives data centers can enjoy. At the same time, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Aaron Ford has reversed his previous support for data center tax breaks, promising to place a moratorium on such incentives if he is elected governor.
Cynics might argue that both candidates are simply placating the public’s apparent distrust of the data center industry. But Schaus suggests that, cynicism aside, restricting or eliminating corporate handouts to any politically connected industry should be viewed as a step in the right direction, regardless of whether the change was motivated by public backlash. Of all the concerns surrounding data centers, the issue of economically distortive corporate welfare being handed out to massively profitable companies is perhaps the lowest-hanging fruit for policymakers to address. One does not even need to feel strongly about the infrastructure required to keep Google Drive functioning properly in order to support a little less political cronyism. Schaus emphasizes that this is the real reason a lawmaker’s past support for such subsidies should be considered problematic—not merely because their position on the issue has conveniently evolved with public opinion, but because their past support reveals a belief that government’s job is to use tax dollars to manipulate the economy for the benefit of those with the best lobbyists. Unfortunately, in Nevada, that has often seemed to be the default position for many lawmakers, regardless of political party. Governors, legislators, and policymakers in the state routinely use the term “economic development” as a catchall excuse to redistribute wealth to politically connected corporations—whether those corporations are sports teams, Hollywood studios, electric vehicle manufacturers, or tech companies seeking to expand cloud computing capabilities.
This broader critique of economic development policy is central to understanding the data center debate in Nevada. Schaus is not arguing that all corporate investment should be rejected or that data centers are inherently harmful. Rather, he is pointing out that the state’s habit of showering tax breaks on large companies has created a culture where government favors are dispensed based on political influence rather than genuine public benefit. The data center controversy has brought this dynamic into sharp focus, forcing candidates and voters alike to confront uncomfortable questions about how the state allocates its resources. The fact that Lombardo and Ford have both moved to distance themselves from data center tax incentives suggests that the political calculation has shifted. Voters are increasingly skeptical of sweetheart deals for big corporations, especially when those corporations are already enormously profitable and when the local costs—water usage, energy demand, environmental impact—are borne by the community. Schaus argues that this shift is healthy, even if it is driven by political expediency. In a world where public policy is often reduced to culture war shouting matches, a debate about tax incentives, water consumption, and grid capacity is a welcome return to the kind of governance that actually affects people’s lives.
Ultimately, Schaus finds it encouraging that a serious policy discussion is at risk of breaking out in local politics. For those who have felt that the last several years have been nothing more than a weird national fever dream, the emergence of a substantive issue like data centers in a gubernatorial race is a hopeful sign. Even more encouraging is that this accidental policy discussion is already yielding at least a few good-government reforms, at least at the local level. In a world full of petulant edgelords dominating the public discourse, that is a rare political development worth applauding, regardless of one’s partisan preferences. The remaining question, Schaus suggests, is whether such policy-based politicking might be contagious. Could other states, and perhaps even national politics, begin to focus more on concrete governance questions rather than the endless cycle of outrage and absurdity? That remains to be seen. But for now, Nevada’s gubernatorial race has offered a glimpse of what a more serious and substantive political conversation might look like. Data centers are not the most glamorous topic, but they are essential to the modern economy, and the way Nevada handles them will have real consequences for residents, businesses, and the environment. By forcing candidates to grapple with those consequences, the state has inadvertently stumbled into the kind of policy discussion that used to be the norm in American politics—and that many voters are hungry to see again. Michael Schaus is a communications and branding expert based in Las Vegas, founder of Schaus Creative LLC, and has more than a decade of experience in public affairs commentary.