Public affairs strategists John Ashford and Jared Dubnow examine the political backlash against data centers, the implications for power-sector investment and regulation, and the potential for public opposition to spread to emerging generation technologies.
Data centers have rapidly become a contentious election issue, as concerns over electricity affordability, infrastructure costs, and local development reshape political attitudes toward an industry that states have aggressively courted for investment. The backlash could accelerate state regulation of large electricity loads, regardless of the outcome of the Nov. 3 midterm elections. One reason may be that public sentiment has shifted substantially. Half of Americans now oppose a data center built within three miles of their homes, compared with 28% in January, according to The POLITICO Poll, conducted Oct. 16–19 by PF Global. The political pressure is also visible in state policy. In Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott has directed reviews of data center interconnection requests and permitting, while Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker has called for changes to state data center incentives. In Georgia, two seats on the five-member Public Service Commission are on the Nov. 3 ballot, which creates the possibility of a change in partisan control of the agency that regulates Georgia Power.
Federal permitting reform is also approaching a procedural vote. On Nov. 9, the U.S. Senate is scheduled to vote on cloture on a motion to proceed to H.R. 2347, the legislative vehicle for a broader permitting reform package. POWER has reported on provisions addressing transmission costs associated with large data center loads, alongside measures intended to accelerate energy infrastructure development.
For John Ashford and Jared Dubnow of The Hawthorn Group, an international public affairs firm, these developments reflect a political shift that began in communities confronting data center siting decisions and is now influencing state and federal policy. Ashford, Hawthorn’s chairman and CEO, co-founded the firm in 1992 after working on political campaigns alongside consultant Matt Reese. Dubnow, a senior vice president, previously worked in Illinois politics, including in the governor’s office and at the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity.
In written responses to POWER ahead of Election Day, the two strategists examined how electricity demand is influencing campaigns, why data center regulation could persist regardless of election outcomes, and how the power industry should prepare for changing political and community expectations. They also warned that developers of emerging generation technologies, including small modular reactors (SMRs), may be underestimating how quickly public attitudes can change.
The following Q&A was conducted jointly in writing. Responses have been edited lightly for style. Brief editorial clarifications appear in brackets.
POWER: What are the most significant energy issues shaping the 2026 midterm elections? How prominently are electricity affordability, grid reliability, data center development, and energy infrastructure featuring in campaigns? Where are these issues resonating most strongly?
Data centers, data centers, and more data centers. In our experience, we’ve never seen an issue take hold so quickly and move from the darling of states and governors to the biggest boogeyman and enemy of the people—according to an October POLITICO poll, half of all Americans would oppose a data center built within three miles of their home. It’s become a third rail of politics. And with data centers, you are really getting affordability, rising electricity costs, not-in-my-backyard opposition (NIMBYism), and the future of our electric grid.
These issues, especially data centers, are playing a role in nearly every major gubernatorial, Senate, and legislative race across the country. And in the states with gubernatorial and/or legislative elections in 2027—including Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, and Virginia [the first three hold gubernatorial elections; New Jersey and Virginia hold legislative elections]—you can bet they’ll be featured prominently, even though many voters have no real idea of the role data centers play in their everyday lives. In some races, it’s the defining feature, but in none is it absent, if only as a talking point on a mailer or TV ad: “I’ll hold data centers accountable; my opponent won’t.” In Georgia, Wisconsin, and Ohio, data centers have become the central issue in the gubernatorial races (Georgia and Wisconsin) and the Senate race (Ohio).
POWER: Which election outcomes could have the greatest consequences for the power industry? Beyond the federal implications, which gubernatorial and state legislative contests could alter utility regulation, resource planning, generation development, and infrastructure permitting? Are there particular states or races the industry should be watching closely?
Georgia is one of the most interesting places because, in addition to the marquee gubernatorial and Senate races, two Public Service Commission (PSC) commissioners are up for election. This follows a 2025 election in which two Democratic candidates won, and for the first time in about two decades, Democrats might actually have a majority on the PSC. This will have major implications for data center generation and how Georgia Power manages the state’s electric grid and generation.
Another consequential election is Wisconsin, where not just the governor is a toss-up, but the legislature is, too. Democrats have a real shot at a power shift and a trifecta, likely bringing on a new wave of anti-data-center regulations, pro-renewable mandates, and policies to curb rising electricity costs.
Finally, Texas looms large on both the state and federal levels. Gov. Greg Abbott has turned on a dime in a few months, from urging vast data center construction to bringing it to a halt. Similarly, the Senate race, pitting Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton against James Talarico, will have major implications not only for the balance of power, but for what kind of partner companies will find in Washington come 2027. Either way, the political reality and pushback in the Lone Star State will have real implications for both data centers and utilities.
POWER: How should the power sector distinguish political rhetoric from consequential policy shifts? Regardless of which party controls Congress or individual states, which regulatory or legislative priorities are likely to persist? Which could change direction significantly?
We may sound like a broken record, but data center regulation is likely here to stay. And it’s not an issue that was born in Congress or in statehouses. It emanates from community opposition groups that have reacted—whether right or wrong—to community siting decisions by data center developers. And now that the trend has taken hold, it’s very difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. The most responsible, community-responsive data center developer is finding that the industry as a whole has been branded as toxic. Too many campaigns and candidates, in response to community opposition, ran on holding them accountable, and now they will have to do something. We fully expect data center regulation, whether around bring-your-own generation, large-load tariffs, or something similar, to be on the menu in every state. And for at least the next year or two, these issues will continue.
Beyond that, keep an eye on permitting reform: will it pass out of the Senate Nov. 9, and what will the implications be, including potential pushback from states that feel the federal government is getting too close for comfort in regulating them? Beyond that, however, I would expect the power industry to widely support a measure that fundamentally allows them to approve projects faster, deliver electrons more easily, and mitigate the massive interconnection backlog that has hampered the industry for years now.
POWER: Data center demand has become a major political and economic issue. How is it influencing electoral debates over electricity prices, infrastructure development, and cost allocation between large customers and existing ratepayers? Are political leaders changing their approach to data center investment?
Just turn on the TV or open any newspaper; data centers are the defining energy and infrastructure issue right now. They touch every power and energy topic—generation, costs, transmission permitting, land use, environmental and water concerns. And while there is real anger over data centers, they’re also likely becoming the boogeyman for other energy-related issues they aren’t directly responsible for, such as rising electricity costs. Take transmission, for example: the entire transmission system needs a major upgrade, which will cost billions of dollars, much of which ratepayers are on the hook for. Should a data center really have to pay for the entire system upgrade because we have a half-century-old system (or more in most cases) that can’t handle new load growth? Probably not, but they are the easy scapegoat to pin all of our problems—and cost increases—on.
And so yes, we’ve seen a massive shift in how leaders approach data centers. Take two incumbent governors who are on almost every issue at opposite ends of the political spectrum: Gov. JB Pritzker in Illinois and Gov. Greg Abbott in Texas. Both were data center cheerleaders, leading the charge to recruit more, offer incentives, and position their states as the next technological leaders. Yet, in 12 months or less, both have called for a pause on state incentives and said the 2027 session (or sooner) needs new data center regulations and reforms.
POWER: Several states are reconsidering regulated utility ownership of generation as concerns about resource adequacy intensify. How might the election influence these debates, competitive electricity markets, generation investment, and long-term resource planning?
The election may change who’s in control, but the discussion is decades old, with arguments no different today than they were 30 years ago, when markets and states were (in some cases) restructuring into a more competitive system. And the response, same as 30 years ago, will be wrapped around “affordability.” The difference today is social media and transparency. The ability to know what’s going on today is based on real-time knowledge. It’s a world of instant knowledge and gratification. And while we can’t solve the problem of affordability and building new generation in real time, we do need to solve it more quickly.
Everyone wants a hand in it—the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), state commissions and governors, state legislators and, of course, local officials and communities. And they all have a role. Utilities want to build their own generation, saying they have access to lower-cost capital. Third-party developers want to compete to build generation, noting that competition disciplines cost. Same as it ever was. The issue is who can bring these projects online most efficiently and cost-effectively. There is a case to be made for both.
In the restructured markets, there is no question that addressing queue bottlenecks and bringing on more generation sooner is critical. For too long, these issues have been allowed to fester. In more regulated systems where utilities can self-build, the issue isn’t just ensuring that construction is done in the most cost-effective way possible, but doing it faster.
And in many of these cases, federal and state regulatory commissions are going to have to call the “balls and strikes” more quickly, recognizing that it’s not just speed to power but understanding, incorporating, and respecting local communities and their concerns—and addressing those concerns in a real, transparent, and collaborative way, while recognizing that talk and “just saying no” produce delay and won’t solve the problem.
Public officials have to recognize it. Communities do, too. Developers need to engage communities and local officials sooner and with more information, or opponents will fill the void with “just say no.” Regulators, elected leaders, and advocacy groups also need to do a better job explaining the need and purpose and the collective benefit that more generation and an upgraded electric system will have for us all. It will take courage and a willingness to engage during a period when engagement is often challenging, profiles in courage are harder to find, and public officials spend more time worrying about reelection or reappointment.
POWER: Power projects require years of planning, financing, permitting, and construction. Which political or regulatory changes could most directly affect capital allocation and project execution? How should companies account for these risks in long-term investment decisions?
A better question is: given the ever-changing political and regulatory environment, which is not necessarily purely partisan, how can companies best plan their long-term investment decisions proactively? And to that, we’d say relationship building. Across the board, companies need to invest better in the entire project. That includes relationship building and local-level research, planning for political changes, shoring up friends and allies on both sides of the aisle, and creating opportunities to engage early on policy decisions that may impact long-term investments. Companies do an incredible job of planning and forecasting the investment. They should do the same level of planning and forecasting for the political and regulatory environment, at the local, state, and federal levels.
POWER: Looking toward 2027, which emerging political, regulatory, or public-opinion shifts should utilities, independent power producers, equipment suppliers, and developers be preparing for? Are there risks the industry may be underestimating?
As the data center question is addressed, a massive buildout of transmission and generation will soon follow. And we’re potentially on the cusp of new forms of generation, from small modular reactors (SMRs) to renewable natural gas [as a power-generation fuel] to geothermal. While there’s a lot of excitement in the market today, and seemingly little opposition or even excitement for these new technologies, we think the market likely underestimates how quickly sentiment and political winds can change. It happened with data centers, and it is likely to happen with other technology. Let’s discuss SMRs as just one example. We only need to look back to the massive opposition to nuclear energy in the 1960s and 1970s to see how controversial it can be. One small potential issue at the first or second test facility can set off a wave of new opposition across the country.
–Interview conducted by Sonal Patel, senior editor at POWER magazine (LinkedIn, @sonalcpatel, @POWERmagazine
