AI data centers can bring substantial private investment, new tax revenue, and infrastructure development to a community. They can also create unusually great demands for electricity, water, land, and public attention.
For mayors, councilmembers, and city staff, the central question is not simply whether data centers are good or bad.
The question is whether a specific project is a good fit for the community—and whether its benefits, costs, and commitments are clearly understood.
Before approving incentives, land-use changes or development agreements, local leaders should evaluate:
This guide provides a practical framework for asking those questions early.
A data center houses servers, networking equipment, storage systems, and the electrical and mechanical infrastructure needed to operate them continuously.
AI data centers may support:
The buildings can resemble warehouses from the outside, but their infrastructure and operating profile are different.
A large campus may include:
High-performance AI processors can create dense electrical and cooling loads. A project may request tens or hundreds of megawatts and may expand through multiple phases.
National forecasts are uncertain, but the direction is clear: AI is contributing to rapid data center electricity growth. That makes local utility capacity and infrastructure planning central to project feasibility.
Cities should avoid evaluating all data centers as a single category. Relevant differences include:
Scale the review process to the actual project.
Developers may consider a community because it offers some combination of:
A property can have suitable zoning and fiber but remain undevelopable if enough electricity cannot be delivered on schedule.
Cities should ask the utility to distinguish among:
Physical proximity to power lines or a substation does not guarantee usable capacity.
The project may be driven by a customer commitment or target energization date. A city should determine whether the proposed schedule aligns with utility studies, environmental review, equipment procurement, and construction.
Pressure for rapid approval should not replace complete due diligence.
Traditional data center energy planning often focuses on one central question:
Where will the electricity come from?
The Solar Harmonics Framework expands that question.
We look at how the data center, power provider, renewable energy resources and surrounding community can work together as part of a more complete energy strategy.
The goal is to help create a path to power that supports the facility while also addressing the concerns that can influence project approval, operating costs and long-term community acceptance.
Every strategy begins with the project's actual needs, including expected load, expansion plans, reliability requirements, sustainability objectives and target energization timeline.
We examine the role of the serving utility, municipal power provider or community choice aggregator and identify the opportunities and constraints surrounding the project.
Solar generation and battery storage can become part of a broader portfolio rather than being treated as stand-alone technologies. Depending on the project, this can include onsite generation, offsite projects, distributed commercial solar and battery energy storage.
Nearby businesses, warehouses, industrial properties and other large energy users may represent additional opportunities for distributed solar and storage. Instead of concentrating every energy investment inside the data center property line, the framework looks for ways the surrounding community can participate.
A well-designed energy strategy can potentially support several objectives at once: Increase renewable energy generation Create opportunities for local businesses and property owners Support broader grid and energy goals Demonstrate tangible community benefits Strengthen relationships with cities and local stakeholders Support the data center's sustainability commitments
The data center doesn't have to be viewed only as a massive new electricity load. It can also become a catalyst for new energy investment in the region where it operates.
A large data center may require:
Local officials should request clear answers from the serving utility and appropriate regulators.
A developer may commit to renewable energy through utility programs, power purchase agreements, or environmental attributes. These commitments can support climate goals, but they do not eliminate the need for physical grid capacity.
Cities should ask separately:
A project should not be described as having secured power merely because an early utility conversation occurred. Local leaders should distinguish among an inquiry, a study request, an interconnection agreement, a construction commitment,t and delivered capacity.
Data center water use varies widely. Some facilities use water-intensive evaporative cooling; others rely more heavily on air cooling, closed-loop systems, ms or alternative designs.
Cities should request:
The city should compare projections with local water supply, infrastructure capacity, and climate conditions.
Data centers commonly use on-site generators for outages and testing. Cities should understand:
Battery storage and other technologies may reduce or supplement some generator functions, but they should not be assumed to provide equivalent duration or reliability without engineering support.
Review may also address:
Environmental review requirements vary by jurisdiction and project. Cities should involve qualified legal, planning and technical professionals.
Many zoning codes were written before modern hyperscale, and AI campuses became common. A data center may otherwise fall into a broad office, warehouse, or utility category that does not address its actual impacts.
Cities may consider:
The appropriate approach depends on local law and community priorities.
By-right approval can create predictability when a project meets defined standards. Conditional or special-use review can provide more discretion and public involvement.
Cities should decide which approach fits before negotiating with a particular applicant whenever possible.
A first-phase building may appear manageable while the ultimate campus has substantially greater power, water, and infrastructure demands.
Review should identify:
Phasing should not obscure cumulative impacts.
Data centers can represent large capital investments and create construction activity. Their permanent employment profile, however, may differ from that of office, manufacturing, or logistics uses occupying comparable land.
The developer should distinguish among:
Avoid combining temporary and permanent positions into one employment figure.
Potential revenue may include property, sales, utility, franchise, or other taxes, depending on state and local law.
Cities should ask:
An incentive may influence site selection, but it also reduces public revenue or creates opportunity cost.
Decision-makers should compare:
The relevant number is the community’s expected net benefit, not the project’s total investment alone.
Residents may reasonably ask about electricity, water, noise, emissions, land use, incentives, and community benefit.
Early engagement can help leaders identify concerns before positions harden.
Subject to legitimate confidentiality and legal limits, public materials may include:
Terms such as “green,” “carbon-free,” “water positive,” or “100% renewable” can mean different things.
Ask the applicant to define:
The city should explain when decisions will be made, which bodies have authority, how the public can comment, and where documents are available.
Transparency does not require the city to take a position before review is complete.
The Solar Harmonics Framework begins with the proposed data center’s actual requirements and then evaluates the surrounding energy environment.
Document load, schedule, phasing, cooling, reliability, and expansion.
Identify serving infrastructure, required upgrades, responsibility, cost,t and timing.
Evaluate utility power, public power, community choice, PPAs,s and renewable commitments.
Assess solar and storage at commercial, industrial, and municipal properties.
Connect feasible investments with local priorities and reporting.
Align infrastructure and benefits with each development phase.
The conventional model is:
Data Center Development → New Electrical Demand
The broader opportunity is:
Data Center Development → New Demand + Grid Planning + Renewable Energy + Storage + Community Investment
Distributed energy does not automatically eliminate project impacts. It can, however, create additional local value when projects are technically sound and honestly measured.
A sustainability or community benefits plan should connect project impacts with practical actions.
Potential measures include:
Commitments should state:
Examples of measurable energy outcomes include:
A standard benefit package may not address the community’s most important needs. Local priorities could include grid resilience, parks, workforce programs, public facilities, transportation, environmental restoration, or support for nearby neighborhoods.
The process should be locally informed and legally reviewed.
If these questions cannot be answered, the city may need more information before making a durable decision.
Cities do not need to wait for a formal application to begin planning.
An early strategy can examine:
Utilities, planning staff, economic-development teams, environmental agencies, emergency services, and community representatives should be involved at the appropriate stages.
AI data centers can become significant parts of a city’s economic and energy landscape. Strong local leadership means evaluating the full project—not only the investment announcement.
The objective is a decision that reflects:
economic value, infrastructure capacity, environmental responsibility, public transparency,y and long-term community benefit.
Solar Harmonics helps cities and stakeholders evaluate how data center power demand may connect with grid planning, renewable energy, battery storage, local properties, and measurable community investment.
Ask for the initial and ultimate electrical load, required power date, and status of the utility study. Power feasibility affects the project schedule, infrastructure,e and potential community impact.
The number varies substantially. Cities should require separate figures for temporary construction workers, permanent onsite employees, and contractors rather than relying on one combined employment number.
They can, but the net benefit depends on state and local tax rules, equipment treatment, depreciation, incentives,s and public-service costs. Projections should be independently reviewed.
That is a policy decision requiring project-specific analysis. Officials should compare expected revenue, costs, alternative land uses, performance requirements, and protections if commitments are not met.
Some do, while others use less water-intensive cooling. Cities should request annual, peak, and drought-period estimates tied to the proposed cooling design.
Not by itself. Renewable procurement may address energy or carbon goals, but physical grid capacity and local infrastructure still need to be evaluated.
Onsite solar alone will generally not meet the continuous demand of a large AI campus. It can be one element of a broader portfolio.
Sometimes they can serve selected functions, but replacement depends on battery duration, reliability requirements, controls, codes, and operating conditions. MW capacity alone is not enough.
Later phases may require much more power, water, backup generation, and infrastructure than the first building. Reviewing only phase one can understate cumulative impacts.
It should identify specific deliverables, responsible parties, deadlines, performance metrics, reporting, and consequences if commitments are missed.
During early site evaluation. Grid capacity, procurement, schedule, reliability, permitting, and expansion are closely connected.
Before major approvals or agreements are substantially settled. Early engagement helps identify local priorities and improves transparency.
Key Points San Jose has spent decades at the center of the digital economy. Now the capital of Silicon Valley is confronting the physical infrastructure
Key Points Pittsburg, California, is emerging as an important test case for one of the biggest questions facing the artificial intelligence economy: How can communities
Key Points Hayward, California, is becoming part of a much larger transformation taking place across the San Francisco Bay Area. Artificial intelligence is driving demand
Key Points The San Francisco Bay Area helped create the technology behind today’s artificial-intelligence revolution. Now the region faces a different challenge: How will we
Key Points Introduction A 500 MW data center is not an ordinary commercial development. When a major AI infrastructure developer approaches a city, the proposal
Key Points The race to build artificial intelligence infrastructure is increasingly becoming a race for electricity. Land can be acquired. Buildings can be constructed. GPUs
