The AI boom just hit a wall  these states are considering banning all new data centers 23%

By Elton Jones41%

8/5/2026, 9:01:40 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Appeal to Emotion, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 31.7% saturation with 220 hits. Analysis detected 1,307 faulty-reasoning hits from 693 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 29.6% and a BS Rank of 23% (22,547 of 29,255 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 77.10% of the article peer group.

It’s become a part of everyday life to wake up to a news story about AI data centers being built somewhere in the U.S. 
It’s also become equally common to be treated to threads full of negative feedback from randoms and the people living in those states once they learn about them. 
The speedy development of data centers has been tied to plenty of unfortunate outcomes thus far—their expansion across the DMV (Washington, D.C., Maryland and Virginia) and Georgia is reportedly driving people from their homes as the spaces they occupy are being considered as fertile ground for new data centers. 
The growing opposition to them is due in large part to their massive consumption of water and electricity they consume, which then raises the utility bills for nearby residents. 
Add on the constant noise pollution from continuous cooling systems, air emissions from backup generators and the conversion of natural green spaces (such as farms) into massive industrial warehouses and you have a long list of valid complaints against continued data center development. 
While states such as Ohio, Illinois and Arizona stand out as growing hubs for the constant advancement of new data centers, there’s also a bunch of other states that are going in the opposite direction. 
Here are the ones that are considering banning them altogether. 
Texas is joining the list of other states that are considering blocking new AI data centers 
(Image credit: Shutterstock) Most recently, The Texas Tribune reported that Texas Gov. 
Greg Abbott announced a moratorium on all data center approvals through the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). 
That is, until the agencies have completed an audit of data centers seeking approval to connect to Texas’s electric grid. 
In a written statement to both agencies, Abbott had this to say: “Our top priority is to protect Texans’ safety and quality of life. 
Any project that fails to comply with the requirements set forth by the PUCT and ERCOT, and by state law, must be denied connection to the Texas grid. 
Simply put, Texans must come first.” 
Alongside Texas are the following states that have introduced moratoriums, continued them or passed legislation on the rapid development of data centers (this information comes courtesy of The National Conference of State Legislatures : 
Delaware introduced a moratorium “on permits for data centers over 100 MW until January 2027.” 
Georgia introduced a moratorium that “forbids local governments from permitting data centers until December 2028.” 
Michigan introduced a moratorium that says “local governments and the public service commission may not permit or approve new data centers until April 2027.” 
New York passed legislation that enacted a “one-year moratorium on data centers over 20 MW.” 
Pennsylvania introduced a “three-year moratorium on new data centers, paired with impact studies; or empower municipalities to prohibit data centers.” 
South Carolina introduced a moratorium that “forbids local approval of data centers until the Legislature adopts a “comprehensive oversight” framework.” 
Vermont introduced a “moratorium on data centers until 2030, requires impact study.” 
Virginia continued a moratorium that “prohibits final approval of new data centers until all interconnection requests are fulfilled, or until July 2028.” 
It’s also worth mentioning the states where moratorium bills against new data centers have failed in their processes of getting passed: 
The stats laid out by Electric Choice in connection to data centers are pretty alarming: 700+ data centers are currently under construction across 38 states, 4,500+ active facilities are littered across all 50 states while consuming 4.4% of total U.S. electricity, and the total natural energy consumption is projected to double by 2028, driven primarily by AI workloads. 
Even though there seems to be a bigger push towards producing even more data centers, it’s refreshing to see some states rising against the AI tide by enacting temporary pauses on their fast-paced development. 
If you’re looking for information on whether data centers have been built or are planning to be built in your home state, it’s definitely worth checking out sites such as Cleanview and Track Data Centers . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.9%Elton Jones: 1.4%Tomsguide: 2.5%Confirmation Bias4.9%This article: 0.0%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 18.0%Elton Jones: 3.8%Tomsguide: 2.7%Availability Heuristic18.0%This article: 0.0%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.4%Elton Jones: 2.5%Tomsguide: 3.5%Framing Effect8.4%This article: 0.0%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.9%Elton Jones: 1.6%Tomsguide: 4.0%Optimism Bias4.9%This article: 8.4%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 1.0%Pessimism Bias8.4%This article: 31.7%Elton Jones: 16.7%Tomsguide: 3.5%Negativity Bias31.7%This article: 3.5%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elton Jones: 0.3%Tomsguide: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 4.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.8%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 1.1%Recency Bias10.8%This article: 5.1%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.4%Primacy Effect5.1%This article: 0.0%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.3%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 2.9%Appeal to Authority13.3%This article: 5.1%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 1.3%False Dilemma5.1%This article: 0.0%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.1%Elton Jones: 4.7%Tomsguide: 4.2%Hasty Generalization7.1%This article: 0.0%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.3%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.7%Bandwagon2.3%This article: 14.6%Elton Jones: 5.1%Tomsguide: 2.7%Appeal to Emotion14.6%This article: 0.0%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 11.3%Elton Jones: 2.4%Tomsguide: 1.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.3%This article: 0.0%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.5%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.3%Burden of Proof3.5%This article: 0.0%Elton Jones: 2.1%Tomsguide: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Elton Jones: 2.1%Tomsguide: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.0%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 2.5%Anecdotal4.0%This article: 0.0%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.9%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.9%This article: 0.0%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.9%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.1%Middle Ground4.9%This article: 0.0%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.2%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 1.0%Unattributed Quote5.2%This article: 1.7%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.3%Quote-first Misdirection1.7%This article: 6.2%Elton Jones: 4.5%Tomsguide: 10.9%Biased Writer Voice6.2%This article: 0.0%Elton Jones: 1.7%Tomsguide: 2.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.9%Elton Jones: 0.0%Tomsguide: 12.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…8.9%

693 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker12%attributed speech609writer words
Selected voice

Greg Abbott

67%flagged-word coverage
84 attributed words100% of attributed speech72% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +25.0 ptsWriter: 5.9%Greg Abbott: 31.0%31.0%Unattributed Quote+26.6 ptsWriter: 2.0%Greg Abbott: 28.6%28.6%Biased Writer Voice-7.1 ptsWriter: 7.1%Greg Abbott: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.0 ptsWriter: 2.0%Greg Abbott: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.