After water, electricity may be the biggest question communities ask about data centers.

That makes sense. Electricity affects everyone: homes, small businesses, schools, hospitals, public safety, manufacturers, restaurants, offices, and local governments. When residents hear that a new data center could use as much power as a large industrial facility, they naturally ask whether the grid can handle it and whether their bills could go up.

Those are fair questions.

They are also questions that should be answered with facts, not fear.

Data centers are not automatically bad for the electric grid. In the right circumstances, they can help justify new power investment, support energy innovation, and strengthen long-term infrastructure. But large data centers are also major electric loads. If growth is not planned carefully, the costs of serving that load can create pressure on utilities, grid operators, businesses, and households.

For Metrocrest and North Texas, the goal should be simple: support responsible growth while making sure residents and small businesses are protected.

Data centers use a lot of electricity

Data centers run servers, networking equipment, cooling systems, backup systems, security systems, and other equipment around the clock. Some are modest in size. Others are major industrial-scale facilities.

Nationally, the electricity impact is growing quickly. The U.S. Department of Energy reported that data centers consumed about 4.4 percent of total U.S. electricity in 2023 and could consume approximately 6.7 percent to 12 percent by 2028. DOE also reported that data center electricity use increased from 58 terawatt-hours in 2014 to 176 terawatt-hours in 2023, with a projected increase to 325 to 580 terawatt-hours by 2028.

The International Energy Agency has reached a similar conclusion globally. IEA reported that data centers accounted for about 1.5 percent of global electricity consumption in 2024 and projected that global data center electricity use could more than double by 2030. IEA also reported that in the United States, data centers are expected to account for nearly half of electricity demand growth between now and 2030.

Those numbers do not mean every community should reject data centers. They mean power planning has to be part of the conversation from the very beginning.

North Texas is part of the power-demand conversation

This issue is especially relevant in North Texas because Dallas-Fort Worth is already one of the country’s major data center markets.

CBRE reports that Dallas-Fort Worth is a 1 gigawatt colocation data center market, with an overall vacancy rate of 2.4 percent. CBRE also reports approximately 700 megawatts of under-construction colocation space that is 94.5 percent preleased, plus another 3 gigawatts of planned greenfield development. Demand from hyperscalers and artificial intelligence providers remains strong. CBRE also notes that high demand is affecting power delivery and that the market is implementing new controls to restrict entry into the power queue.

For Metrocrest, this means electricity cannot be treated as a side issue.

A data center proposal is not just a real estate project. It is also an infrastructure project. It can involve substations, transformers, transmission planning, distribution upgrades, backup power, interconnection studies, and long-term utility coordination.

That does not make data centers a bad fit. It means communities should evaluate them with the same seriousness they would bring to any large infrastructure-intensive development.

The grid is local, regional, and statewide at the same time

Electricity can be confusing because different entities play different roles.

ERCOT manages the flow of electric power to more than 27 million Texas customers, representing about 90 percent of the state’s electric load. It operates the grid that connects more than 55,000 miles of transmission lines and more than 1,460 generation units. ERCOT is also subject to oversight by the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the Texas Legislature.

But local communities also deal with local utilities, transmission and distribution providers, land-use decisions, development agreements, permitting, emergency planning, and resident concerns.

That is why data center power demand cannot be handled by one level of government alone. State policy matters. ERCOT planning matters. Utility planning matters. Local land-use decisions matter. So does public communication.

When a project needs a large amount of power, local leaders should understand not only whether the site can be served, but also what upgrades are needed, who pays for them, how long they take, and what risks remain if the project changes, delays, or never fully materializes.

Ratepayer protection should be part of economic development

When people hear “ratepayer protection,” it can sound technical. It is actually very simple.

Residents and small businesses should not be left paying for infrastructure that primarily serves a private large-load project unless there is a clear, fair, and transparent public benefit.

That principle matters because grid upgrades can be expensive. A large project may require new transmission capacity, substation upgrades, distribution improvements, equipment procurement, or other infrastructure. If those costs are not allocated properly, they can eventually show up in electric rates, fees, or utility charges paid by customers who did not create the demand.

The National League of Cities has noted that local governments are balancing the positives of data center development, such as tax revenue and construction jobs, with concerns about increased energy use, strain on power grids, and costs possibly being handed down to ratepayers.

This is not an argument against data centers. It is an argument for better deals, better planning, and better protections.

A data center project that expands the tax base, funds necessary infrastructure, supports local economic development, and avoids shifting costs to residents can be a strong community asset. A project that requires expensive upgrades without clear cost responsibility can create long-term frustration.

Texas has already moved toward large-load accountability

Texas policymakers have recognized that large electric loads need more structure and oversight.

Senate Bill 6, signed by the Governor and effective immediately on June 20, 2025, addresses planning, interconnection, operation, and costs related to serving certain large electric loads. The law requires the Public Utility Commission to establish standards for interconnecting large-load customers in the ERCOT power region in a way that supports business development while minimizing stranded infrastructure costs and maintaining system reliability. The statute sets a 75 megawatt threshold unless the PUC determines a lower threshold is needed.

That 75 megawatt figure is important. It is not aimed at every office, warehouse, or technology company. It is aimed at very large loads that can significantly affect transmission planning.

SB 6 also requires large-load customers subject to the standards to contribute to the recovery of utility costs needed to interconnect that large load. For electric cooperatives or municipally owned utilities that have not adopted customer choice, the law requires reasonable interconnection costs to be passed through to the large-load customer.

The law also addresses transparency and reliability. Large-load customers subject to the standards must disclose certain information about similar requests for electric service elsewhere in Texas, with confidentiality protections for competitively sensitive details. They must also disclose information about certain on-site backup generating facilities. During specified emergency conditions, ERCOT may direct applicable utilities to require certain large-load customers with on-site backup generation to deploy that backup generation or curtail load, subject to the law’s limits.

For local communities, the broader message is clear: Texas is trying to welcome large-scale economic development while making sure large-load projects are planned responsibly and do not create avoidable reliability or cost problems.

Power is not just about supply. It is also about timing.

A data center’s electricity use matters, but timing also matters.

Some loads are steady. Some peak at certain times of day. Some can be flexible. Some cannot. A facility that can reduce load during emergency conditions may be different from one that must operate at full power no matter what is happening on the grid.

This is important because Texas often faces the greatest grid stress during extreme weather and peak-demand periods. The question is not only how much electricity a facility uses over a year. It is also what the facility needs during the hottest afternoons, winter storms, grid emergencies, and times when generation or transmission is constrained.
IEA has noted that grids are already under strain in many places, and that planned data center projects can face delays if electricity-sector bottlenecks are not addressed. IEA also notes that building new transmission lines can take four to eight years in advanced economies and that wait times for critical grid components such as transformers and cables have doubled in recent years.

That is why early planning matters so much.

A community should not wait until a project is already controversial to ask whether the necessary power infrastructure exists, how long upgrades will take, and who will pay.

Responsible operators should help solve the power problem

A responsible data center operator should not simply ask a community for power. It should help explain how the project will be served responsibly.

That may include paying for required interconnection costs, supporting new generation, using power purchase agreements, investing in energy efficiency, participating in demand-response or curtailment programs where feasible, disclosing backup generation, and coordinating early with utilities and grid operators.

Google’s 2025 Texas announcement gives one example of how major operators are beginning to frame these commitments. Google announced a $40 billion Texas investment through 2027 and said it is committed to bringing new energy resources onto the grid, paying costs associated with its operations, supporting a $30 million Energy Impact Fund, and contracting for more than 6,200 megawatts of new energy generation and capacity through power purchase agreements with energy developers.

Not every company will be Google, and not every project will involve commitments of that size. But every community can ask the same basic question:

How will this project help pay for and support the infrastructure it needs?

Local leaders should ask specific power questions

Before supporting a major data center project, communities should ask practical questions about electricity and ratepayer protection.

• How much power will the project need at full buildout?
• How much power will it need in the first phase?
• Will the project cross the 75 megawatt large-load threshold under Texas law?
• What transmission, distribution, substation, or transformer upgrades are needed?
• Who pays for those upgrades?
• What happens if the project reserves capacity but delays construction?
• What happens if the project never reaches full operation?
• Will residents or small businesses be exposed to stranded infrastructure costs?
• Does the operator have firm power arrangements?
• Will the operator support new generation or storage?
• Will the facility participate in demand response, curtailment, or emergency load-reduction programs where feasible?
• What backup generation will be on site?
• How often will backup systems be tested?
• How will backup generation affect noise and air quality?
• How will the project affect other economic development opportunities that also need power?