From Ohio to Kozani, the new constraint on artificial intelligence may not be chips. It may be energy, social acceptance and political approval.
Six figures point to a global trend
| Indicator | What it means |
|---|
| $697bn | J.P. Morgan’s estimate of the capital expenditure of the five largest US hyperscalers in 2026 |
| 41 ballot measures | Local ballot measures on data centres in ten US states on November 3 |
| 28 restrictive measures | Proposals that would restrict development through bans, moratoriums or additional requirements |
| At least 14 opposing municipalities | Ohio municipalities that approved bans or other restrictions |
| 415 TWh | Global electricity consumption by data centres in 2024, according to the IEA |
| 12 GW versus 517 MW | Data centre connection applications in Greece compared with projects that have signed contracts or final connection offers |
November 3, 2026: The US vote that changed the debate
In Ohio, the US “capital” of data centres, voters in several communities either rejected plans or approved restrictions on new digital facilities. In Wilmington, for example, residents voted down four proposed land-use changes that would have allowed facilities to be built. In the Ashville area, voters rejected the municipality’s proposed framework agreement with EdgeConneX to develop a data centre. Finally, in another area, Hubbard, about 76% backed the first outright ban on data centre development there.
In all, at least 14 Ohio municipalities approved bans or restrictions. The decisions varied: some imposed outright bans, others applied to facilities above a certain power threshold, while others set stricter permitting requirements and financial guarantees for developers.
The political dimension was just as significant. Democrats won back Ohio’s Senate seat, defeating the Republicans. In Georgia, Democrats also won the elections for the Public Service Commission, securing a majority on the electricity regulator for the first time in 30 years.
It would be wrong to attribute these electoral shifts solely to data centres. The cost of living, energy bills and broader political discontent were wider issues in the election. But the dispute over energy infrastructure has now taken on a clear political and electoral dimension,
Most importantly, the issue has moved beyond technical discussions in planning boards. It has become a matter of bills, land, water, taxation and political representation.
AI is no longer in the “cloud” but on the ground
A data centre is essentially a factory for computing power. It consumes electricity and uses specialised equipment and cooling systems to provide the computing capacity on which artificial intelligence models and cloud services rely.
Requirements vary considerably depending on size and use. A conventional data centre may require tens of MW, while large facilities serving AI applications can need hundreds of MW. The largest campuses are now being designed at a scale approaching 1 GW.
| Unit | What it represents |
|---|
| 1 MW | 1,000 kW |
| 1 GW | 1,000 MW |
| 100 MW | Indicatively, consumption equivalent to that of about 200,000 households |
| 1 TWh | 1 billion kWh |
Electricity is becoming the main constraint on data centre growth
Globally, data centres’ share of total consumption remains relatively small. But the impact is not evenly distributed. In certain areas, the concentration of large facilities creates a sharp increase in demand and puts pressure on grids that were not designed for such loads.
This is at the heart of the conflict. The issue is not simply how much energy artificial intelligence consumes globally. It is who will pay for the additional generation and grid upgrades, how quickly they will be built, and whether those costs will also be passed on to other consumers.
| IEA indicator | Estimate |
|---|
| Data centre consumption, 2024 | ~415 TWh |
| Share of global consumption, 2024 | ~1.5% |
| Estimated consumption, 2030 | ~945 TWh |
| Share of global consumption, 2030 | Just under 3% |
Five concerns all come down to one bill
Local opposition does not have just one cause. It centres on five issues that often reinforce one another.
The most political question is who pays the bill. Consumers do not care whether an increase stems from inadequate electricity market design or new demand from data centres. They see the cost on their bill and a large new facility in their neighbourhood.
Rising power needs and their impact on capacity auctions have intensified the debate over who should bear the cost of new infrastructure. The point is not that every price increase is caused solely by data centres. It is that new demand must be accommodated under rules that protect existing consumers.
| Concern | What concerns local communities | The industry’s response |
|---|
| Electricity bills | New demand could increase the cost of power and the need for grid investment | With proper planning and special tariffs, the large consumer can bear the cost |
| Water | Cooling and power generation require water resources, which are particularly critical in areas facing water scarcity | Newer technologies and different cooling systems can reduce consumption |
| Employment | Permanent jobs after construction are usually far fewer than temporary jobs during the building phase | Investment generates indirect activity, tax revenue and demand for services |
| Tax breaks | Municipalities offer incentives without always securing clear, measurable returns | Tax breaks can attract investment that would otherwise go elsewhere |
| Transparency and quality of life | Noise, generators, land use, environmental impacts and agreements without adequate public information | Companies cite commercial confidentiality, competition and strict technical standards |
The ballot box and differing policy responses
The November 3 votes in the US took place in ten states and covered 41 local measures. According to Ballotpedia’s tally, 28 of them sought to restrict development, while the remaining 13 would facilitate or support specific forms of development.
The opposition is not strictly partisan. The policy response, however, varies. Some call for bans or moratoriums. Others opt for stricter connection requirements, special tariffs, guarantees and tax obligations.
The Trump administration had sought to address the issue with the voluntary Ratepayer Protection Pledge, aiming to ensure companies take responsibility for the cost of the power they need and related grid upgrades. The policy direction is clear: data centre development should continue, but not at the expense of households.
| Location / development | Outcome or direction |
|---|
| Ohio | At least 14 municipalities approved bans or restrictions |
| Hubbard, Ohio | About 76% backed an outright ban |
| Wilmington, Ohio | Voters rejected four land-use changes that would have allowed data centres |
| Ashville, Ohio | Framework agreement with EdgeConneX rejected |
| Georgia | Democrats secured a 3–2 majority on the Public Service Commission |
| New York | A one-year freeze on permits for new facilities with capacity of at least 50 MW had already been adopted |
The rest of the world: the same problem, different priorities
The conflict is not confined to the US. In Europe, the central issue is the ability to connect new facilities to grids with limited capacity. In Asia, water consumption and site selection have become more prominent concerns.
The common conclusion is that announcing an investment is not enough. Access to the grid, water use for cooling, site selection and the distribution of economic benefits must all be addressed before construction begins.
| Location | Development | What it shows |
|---|
| Ireland | Data centres accounted for 23% of measured electricity consumption in 2025, according to the national statistics office | A concentration of facilities can create a serious problem for the grid |
| Malaysia – Johor | Rapid data centre expansion prompted concerns about water consumption and led to tighter oversight | Water availability should be a factor in site selection |
| Spain | The development of large facilities has prompted local opposition over land use and water resources | Social acceptance cannot be secured simply by announcing a major investment |
| Netherlands | The Zeewolde case highlighted the limits of political and social acceptance for large data centres | In practice, local consent is part of the permitting process |
Greece: 12 GW in applications, just 517 MW at an advanced stage
Greece is at a different point in the process. It has not yet seen opposition on a scale comparable to that in Ohio. But it is already facing the first major problem: applications to connect data centres far exceed the available power and the projects that have reached an advanced stage.
In 2025, about 21 data centres with total capacity of around 44 MW were operating. Connection applications have now exceeded 12 GW, while signed contracts and final offers from IPTO (ADMIE) amount to just 517 MW.
The gap between applications and projects that have secured a connection is decisive. Applications do not equate to committed investment. The 12 GW includes plans at different stages of development, while the 517 MW represents much more concrete progress.
Geography creates both opportunities and constraints. Attica attracts significant investor interest, but has considerably less available capacity than Western Macedonia and Thessaly. The latter could prove particularly important in the next phase of development.
Kozani is Greece’s most interesting experiment. The prospect of developing a data centre in the former lignite region, with the participation of PPC and AWS, links the digital economy with Western Macedonia’s transition to a new economic model. The first phase is planned at a scale of 300 MW.
The goal, however, is not to turn every available plot of land into a data centre. It is to select projects that can secure actual power, sustainable energy supply, suitable sites and long-term economic activity.
| Indicator | Figure |
|---|
| Operating data centres, 2025 | ~21 |
| Total capacity of operating facilities | ~44 MW |
| Connection applications | More than 12 GW |
| Signed contracts / final offers | 517 MW |
| Available grid capacity, Western Macedonia | 630 MW |
| Available grid capacity, Thessaly | 605 MW |
| Available grid capacity, Attica | 180 MW |
| Available grid capacity, Crete | 140 MW |
New rules change the equation
The bill submitted to parliament seeks to establish a stricter framework. Among other provisions, it requires:
• At least 60% of annual electricity consumption to be covered by new renewable energy sources, subject to specific conditions.
• A €200,000 bank guarantee for each MW of installed capacity.
• An annual fee of €15,000 per MW, with the proceeds directed to household consumers and municipalities in the area.
• Stricter requirements for grid connection, including evidence that the project is environmentally and planning-wise mature.
The bill submitted to parliament seeks to establish a stricter framework. The direction is right: investment should bear a greater share of the costs it creates and deliver measurable benefits to the local community. Its effectiveness, however, will depend on implementation. The rules must be clear, predictable and the same for everyone, without creating unnecessary delays or favouring projects that have no genuine prospect of being built.
The investor’s perspective: invest where the shortfall is greatest
The investment case differs from the political message. Voter opposition does not mean the AI investment cycle is over. It means that the value of those able to deliver projects on time is rising.
The key metric is no longer just access to GPUs. It is time to power: how quickly a project can secure electricity and move from planning to commercial operation.
Markets often treat investment announcements as if they were future revenues. In practice, a project can be delayed by grid connections, permits, equipment or local opposition. Delays push back revenues, raise financing costs and can reduce returns on capital.
Investors must distinguish genuine development from projects that remain promises.
1. Don’t buy the promise. Buy secured power
A company with signed access to electricity has a clear advantage over one with only announcements, applications or non-binding agreements. The same applies to developers that have secured land, permits and the ability to connect to the grid.
2. Hyperscalers remain in focus, but execution costs matter
Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet and Meta have the financial firepower to fund large investment programmes. But they cannot buy unlimited electricity or bypass permitting processes. The quality of their investments will also depend on how effectively they turn capex into productive capacity and revenue.
3. Chipmakers are not the only winners
| Sector | Investment opportunity | Key risk |
|---|
| Electricity grids and utilities | Investment in transmission, distribution and new connections | Regulatory framework and cost of capital |
| Electricity generators | New generation and long-term supply contracts | Project delays and price volatility |
| Electrical equipment | Transformers, cables, substations and switchgear | Supply chain and valuation |
| Cooling and heat management | Growing need for efficient cooling systems | Technological competition |
| Data centre developers and REITs | Leases and long-term contracts with hyperscalers | Access to power, permits and financing |
In Greece, exposure could come through PPC, IPTO (ADMIE), electrical equipment manufacturers and companies involved in generation and storage projects. The investment case, however, must be based on real projects, contracts and financial figures — not just the expectation that the country will become a regional data centre hub.
4. Greece’s bet is on Western Macedonia and Thessaly
Attica has the strongest commercial interest but limited available power. Western Macedonia and Thessaly have more scope for grid connections. This gives an advantage to areas able to combine land, grid access, power generation and local acceptance.
Kozani is a significant opportunity, but not a guaranteed investment success. Its ultimate value will depend on execution, financing, energy contracts and the presence of customers.
5. The greatest risk is delay
Markets often treat investment announcements as if they were future revenues. In practice, a project can be delayed by grid connections, permits, equipment or local opposition. Delays push back revenues, raise financing costs and can reduce returns on capital.
Investors must distinguish genuine development from projects that remain promises.
The four Ps of the new AI trade
These four criteria should serve as a filter for developers as well as companies financing or supplying the infrastructure
| Criterion | Question | Why it matters |
|---|
| Power | Is electricity capacity secured? | There can be no productive operation without power |
| Permits | Are permits in place and processes sufficiently advanced? | Without permits, there is no reliable timetable |
| Property | Are suitable land and water available, and is there social acceptance? | Site selection determines cost and whether a project can be delivered |
| Paying tenant | Is there a committed customer? | Without a contract, the project remains an investment bet |
Five rules that will shape the landscape
The elections and international experience point to a common framework:
1. Those who cause the cost should pay for it. Large consumers must bear the actual cost of connection and the upgrades they require.
2. Energy must be secured in advance. A data centre connection cannot rely on vague promises of future generation.
3. Tax incentives require something in return. Exemptions should be tied to measurable investment, employment and local benefits.
4. Transparency is essential for trust. Local communities should be informed about energy and water consumption, environmental impacts and the main terms of agreements.
5. Site selection should come before conflict. Brownfield industrial sites and areas with available power are preferable to locations where development conflicts with housing, farmland or water constraints.
What investors should watch
| When | What is at stake | Why it matters |
|---|
| Coming months | Implementation of Greece’s new framework | Which projects will be prioritised and which will be left out |
| December 14, 2026 | Deadline for the European consultation on data centre performance standards | The direction of common European rules |
| January 2027 | The new US Congress takes office | Whether voluntary commitments to protect consumers will become binding |
| 2027–2028 | Power availability and completion of new facilities | Whether today’s investment announcements turn into operating capacity and revenue |
Conclusion: chips will not stop AI
Artificial intelligence was sold to markets as a software revolution. But delivering it requires infrastructure on a scale comparable to major industrial and energy investments: land, water, electricity, grids and capital.
The Ohio ballot does not signal the end of data centre growth. It signals the end of the assumption that these investments can proceed without being answerable to the communities that host them.
The real lesson is not “fewer data centres”. It is better-designed projects, with clear rules, a fair distribution of costs and tangible local benefits.
For Greece, the opportunity remains significant. The country has investor interest, geographical advantages and areas capable of hosting new infrastructure. But it also has a clear warning sign: 12 GW of applications against just 517 MW of projects with signed contracts or final connection offers.
This gap shows how wide the divide is between investment expectations and the actual ability to deliver.
For markets, the next phase of AI will not be determined solely by who makes the best chips or develops the most powerful models. It will depend on who can secure power, permits, land and customers — and deliver on time.
In the new AI trade, electricity is the raw material, a permit is the ticket and social acceptance is the condition for operating.
Key sources: Ballotpedia — Voters in ten states will vote on data center-related ballot measures November 3, Fortune — Ohioans overwhelmingly oppose data centers. 21 ballot measures have put their ire to the test, Data Center Dynamics — Local data center moratoria, limits, and restrictions voted in across the US, WABE — Democrats flip control of Georgia utility commission for first time in decades, Reuters — Democrat Sherrod Brown wins back US Senate seat in Ohio, J.P. Morgan — Powering progress: Financing the infrastructure behind US data center growth, International Energy Agency — Energy and AΙ, Naftemporiki — Data centres: Fees and requirements for new facilities to become operational, Greek City Times — Data Centre Investors Seek 12 GW From Greece’s Power Grid, CNBC — Data center backlash in Europe and Asia, Goldman Sachs — Research on AI infrastructure and electricity demand, Bain — Research on data center infrastructure and capacity constraints, SemiAnalysis — The Datacenter Backlash Goes Bipartisan.
Nicholas Havoutis has many years’ experience leading strategic finance functions, having held executive positions at JPMorgan (New York), Chase Manhattan Bank (London) and Eurobank (Athens). He also has a significant presence in the media. Today, as head of SoZone Limited, he advises businesses and investors on international growth, operational optimisation and merger and acquisition strategies.
