Meta Warns of Tougher Data Center Builds as States Still Seek Investment

The 2024 study covers all US data centers. The two 2028 bars show alternative endpoints of a forecast range, not amounts to add together. Source: US Department of Energy.

The bargain extends beyond an electricity bill

Powell McCormick described Meta’s approach as paying for its own electricity, directing tax surpluses toward teachers and first responders, using local labor and securing bipartisan support. She expects projects to undergo greater review of whether constituents actually want them, according to the account of her remarks.

The electricity issue predates this election. A Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study, released by the US Department of Energy in December 2024, estimated that US data centers used 176 terawatt-hours in 2023, about 4.4% of national electricity consumption, compared with 58 terawatt-hours in 2014—roughly a threefold increase.

The study projected 325–580 terawatt-hours in 2028, representing 6.7%–12% of US electricity consumption. That wide forecast range concerns data centers generally, rather than AI alone; it is neither an observed 2026 total nor a measure of their contribution to household bills.

The department’s 2024 response included work on generation, storage, transmission, demand flexibility and electricity rate structures. Those options underline why paying an electricity bill and ensuring adequate infrastructure are distinct questions.

Meta’s commitments also raise questions about who gets the work and where public revenue goes. The available reporting does not establish the contractual terms or enforcement of those commitments across its projects.

Nor does Powell McCormick describe the problem as purely about infrastructure. She argues that data centers have become the visible expression of broader unease about AI, and that the industry has failed to explain the benefits of its investments. That is Meta’s diagnosis of the backlash, rather than evidence that better messaging alone will overcome it.

Construction spending creates competing financial incentives

An intraday market report put Meta down roughly 4% and chipmaker Nvidia down 8% on November 5. It described worries about tighter regulation and slower infrastructure spending, alongside broader efforts to reduce AI exposure and take profits. Those figures describe trading during the session, not closing prices or a measured effect of any enacted restriction.

The same account described the opposite reaction a day earlier: some large technology companies rose on hopes that slower capital spending would improve their finances. The reversal exposes competing interests within the AI investment chain. Less construction can threaten suppliers’ sales while reducing the spending burden on the companies buying infrastructure.

The construction underway makes this more than a debate about future sites. The market report describes Meta’s $50 billion Hyperion data center in Louisiana and its $14 billion Texas project as under construction. A separate account of the El Paso campus puts its cost at $10 billion. The Texas figures are unreconciled; neither report establishes that the entire investment is threatened by the election.

Meta also argues that computing capacity retains value even if its consumer AI business grows more slowly than hoped. Powell McCormick said in the account of her remarks that the company receives daily requests to lease capacity it has built. Leasing offers a possible use beyond Meta’s own services, but inquiries do not establish signed contracts, lease prices or investment returns.

The next test is what officials will approve

Powell McCormick’s strongest qualification to her warning concerns a governor-elect she declined to identify. She said the incoming governor had made data centers a major campaign issue but wanted a meeting after inauguration to avoid losing investment and jobs. The recorded exchange supports her account of the approach; it does not identify the official or establish an agreement to approve a project.

The campaign issue extends beyond that unnamed official. A report on the incoming governors identifies Amy Acton in Ohio and Keisha Lance Bottoms in Georgia as winners who campaigned on restricting new data centers. Their campaign positions do not establish what restrictions they will enact.

Approvals, enforceable commitments and changes to construction schedules will show whether the election principally changes the terms of expansion or materially reduces the capacity Meta can build. The unnamed governor’s reported interest in a meeting leaves that question open.