Carol Khalil is a clean energy attorney from Aroostook County. All views are her own.

Gov. Janet Mills demonstrated a failure of leadership recently when she vetoed a first-in-the nation, common sense approach to the unchecked proliferation of data centers. The bill, LD 307, would have temporarily paused permits for new data centers until November 2027, while the impacts of data centers were studied. It easily passed the Legislature with bipartisan support.

Bowing to perceived pressure from her home county, Gov. Mills failed to represent her broader constituency.

Data centers are not new. But their rapid expansion, driven by the rise of artificial intelligence (AI), is unprecedented. According to the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, the number of U.S. data centers more than doubled between 2018 and 2021, doubled again by late 2025, and is expected to triple again by 2028. As technology companies race for dominance in this new industry, they are spending aggressively to build out infrastructure.

These companies promise that data centers will bring economic growth — and certainly that story was compelling to Gov. Mills. Communities elsewhere have discovered too late that the costs are significant and the benefits overstated.

First, claims of economic growth have not borne out. While construction creates short-term jobs, data centers require very few employees once operational. Gov. Mills herself acknowledged the impermanence of job growth, citing the potential for 800 construction jobs, but only 100 permanent jobs, at the former Androscoggin Mill site in Jay. Those numbers should be viewed with skepticism.

Amazon’s $10 billion data center build in Ohio, for example, was touted as creating “thousands” of jobs, but filings show that Amazon committed to creating only 1,058 new jobs — none of which were required to be full-time, salaried positions. And even construction jobs are not assured for local workers; data center construction requires specialized labor that companies often import.

The costs, by contrast, are immediate and far-reaching. Data centers impose significant pressure on already strained electric grids. Cooling server stacks requires extraordinary amounts of power: a single conventional data center can draw as much electricity as 10,000 households, often necessitating costly transmission upgrades. CMP has recently requested a rate increase to address “upgrades and rising costs” — all before the load of a new data center is added.

In Virginia and Texas, where data centers are common, residents have seen their energy bills double and, in some cases, triple. Mainers can expect the same while many are already struggling with the cost of living.

Water use presents another serious concern. Conservatively, a data center uses around 18,000 gallons of water a day. Meanwhile, Maine has been in severe drought for the last two years, with more than 500 families reporting dry wells by the end of 2025. Even in Franklin County, public drinking water systems are under strain. Against that backdrop, is it fair to force Mainers to dedicate our limited water to data centers?

Time and time again, residents find out too late in the process that a data center is planned for their community. Town and city councils, swayed by the (false) promise of jobs and taxes, and told that they are competing with their neighbors for the privilege of hosting, agree to these projects without fully evaluating the statewide impact on electricity, water and land use. To say nothing of pausing to consider whether the community wants to be furthering a technology that is contributing to rapid American job loss.

The Maine Legislature recognized the need for caution. In a rare moment of broad bipartisan agreement, it passed a measured law to pause new data center construction and give the state time to evaluate the true costs and benefits. Gov. Mills, subordinating the interests of all Mainers to the potential for 800 temporary jobs in one town, chose to override that judgment.

Maine’s motto — Dirigo, “I lead” — reflects a tradition of thoughtful, forward-looking governance. By vetoing LD 307, Gov. Mills turned away from that tradition and missed an opportunity to lead.