Experts Debate: Data Center Pros and Cons You Need to Know

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: - We elect people and those individuals are supposed to be a part of a broader infrastructure to represent our concerns, our needs, not a few billionaires who have come and told us this is what the future is going to look like without our input being a part of it. [00:00:19] Speaker 2: - So, O'Brien, can I ask you an honest question? Are you anti-business? 'Cause it sounds that way to me and I might argue that my property rights are denied in a lot of these meetings and my lawyers and myself can't get a word in edgewise 'cause people are screaming at me and not listening to what I have to say and then accusing me of not answering questions. So what I would say to you is the fight for fight's sake or do you really care about the issues being addressed? And if those issues are addressed, are you willing to put your swords, your daggers and your guns back in your wallet and support those who do the right thing? [00:01:02] Speaker 3: - This is Can We Agree, the program that asks whether two brilliant minds from opposite corners of an argument can find any common ground on the questions that matter most to America. Today, the fastest moving issue in American politics, not immigration, not abortion, a building, windowless, humming, the size of several football fields, the AI data center. And here's some data. Annenberg asked Americans the same question twice this year, do you oppose a data center in your area? Spring, 49% said yes. By summer, 61%. Democrats, Republicans, independents, majorities of all three. And opinion of AI itself hadn't moved. America didn't turn against the technology, at least not initially, it turned against the building. More than 500 towns and counties have passed bans or moratoriums. New York froze an entire state. $45 million in midterm ads split evenly between the parties. It's even divided the White House. The president says, "Let data reign." His vice president said, "Build one and you'd better be putting power back into the grid, not taking it out." The twist, nearly 4,000 announced, 800 actually under construction. America is mobilizing against a build-out that mostly hasn't happened yet. So here's the question. Is this a fight over water, power, and noise or about who gets to say no? And if every town says no, then who wins, the neighbors or Beijing? Brian O'Neill is the Pennsylvania developer who says he'd like to build $18 billion of data centers in the Philadelphia suburbs on a shuttered steel mill and a former drug company campus. He sued one township the day before it voted, it voted no anyway, unanimously. And a second township's council is apparently also opposed. His own governor, Josh Shapiro, said, "I'm a hell no about one of his projects." He is what this fight looks like on the ground, in every state where it's happening. Abrey Conner leads environmental and climate justice at the NAACP, now in federal court against Elon Musk's XAI over the gas turbines across the state line in Mississippi that power his data centers in Memphis with the Justice Department on Musk's side. Her rule in four words, jobs cannot justify harm. Media centers, build or ban, let's see where they agree. Appreciate both of you being here for this conversation, thank you so much. By the way, you're sort of the face of public enemy number one these days, and I don't mean you, Brian O'Neill in particular, but I mean, this whole controversy has taken on a life of its own. Did you see this coming? [00:03:49] Speaker 2: You know, none of us saw this coming. But it's like the internet. Today, I was reading about the fear around the internet. The estimates were that 10 million people were going to lose their job and the similar amount of hysteria surrounded the internet. The reality is 10 million jobs were added and continue to be added today. Automobiles at the turn of the century were completely out doing horses and buggies. They weren't ready for it, trains had a flagman in Europe to make sure that the train never went over four miles an hour. So anytime you innovate, there's fear. And we don't have enough history to overcome the fear. But if you track great innovation, it's like an inverted bell curve. You know, the anxiety hits a crescendo, and then people realize things aren't so bad. And the operators, like us, adjust. So you know, a lot of the concerns are legitimate, but they're dated. [00:04:52] Speaker 3: I think he's saying this is just what change looks like. [00:04:55] Speaker 1: You know, it's an interesting point to bring up that this is just what we need for innovation, and also to bring up the internet. I'll first start with, you know, what we have seen for a number of years. When I first started my career, the fracking boom was supposedly, right, going to be the way that we were going to achieve energy dominance across the world. There was untested solutions that were being put in communities. There was a promise of jobs. There was a promise that the infrastructure itself wasn't going to be so bad. And the communities themselves were concerned. And they did try to ring the alarm at that time. And unsurprisingly, industry did not meet the needs of the community. It took almost a decade for there to be the reports and the studies that actually lined up with what the communities actually knew at that time, which was that it was going to lead to long-term health concerns, that it was going to impact their land use, that it was going to impact their quality of life moving forward. And then we just pretended like none of that happened. And we moved on to the next thing, right? And that is what we're seeing here. The communities who have had to be sacrifice zones for many of these untested solutions are now being asked to be sacrifice zones for AI data centers. And the jobs, as it relates to AI data centers, the numbers don't line up. And industry has had to continue to change the talking points as it relates to what jobs actually do exist. Well, it's construction jobs. At least there's jobs at some point. It doesn't necessarily have to be long-term jobs. The fact that the talking points continue to change is a concern for communities because that doesn't seem to line up as well. And with the internet, people actually could see what the vision was. When it comes to AI data centers, a lot of people, they don't want the end product. People at least wanted the internet. A lot of people don't even want AI. [00:07:09] Speaker 3: Can I? There's a lot there to unpack. That's the whole show, by the way. We're going to break all that down. But may I start with jobs? Brian, there is a perception that you'll create a lot of jobs in building AI data centers. And then it's going to be, like, one guy with a flashlight. True or false? [00:07:26] Speaker 2: Well, I want to reel back. I want to ask you what you think the impacts on communities are. I'd like you to list them for us, just so if we're going to have this dialogue, we're addressing specific concerns. [00:07:38] Speaker 1: And I don't even necessarily have to say what I think. I can tell you what I see, you know, from my work every single day, which is that you have, for example, methane gas turbines or other kinds of infrastructure, diesel backup generators that are being used in order to power AI data centers. Even the ones that are considered the cleanest version of AI data centers, they're still using diesel backup generators. So the airshed that is impacted because of these data centers is a concern. And it's something that we already have studies on. There was a Harvard study that was done on the XAI data center in South Haven that backs up that point. Water infrastructure is impacted. There are already communities that have brown water near their communities because of data centers. Water scarcity concerns. And it's not just a concern. We're actually seeing people's water pressure go down in certain places. And companies lying about utilizing public utilities for their water. And then communities having to sue the company because they lied about where they were getting their water from. Quality of life concerns and noise. I know people who were getting eight and nine hours of sleep per night. Now they're getting three to four because a data center is in their community. I mean the grid. [00:09:06] Speaker 2: Let me just. Okay, let's go through a couple of these and go ahead. I want to break that down for a minute. I took notes. Do you want me to hit you with each one? No, I think I have them to memory. [00:09:14] Speaker 1: And I didn't even get to the grid yet, but you can start with those. [00:09:16] Speaker 2: Let's start at the top and I'll include the grid. Start with emissions. Elon Musk built his facility with turbines. You're 100% right. That is an attainment zone under the EPA. And he had the right and the permits to do that. He didn't have the permits, but go ahead. Well, he did because he's operating. Whether or not he could do better is something that has evolved. So my question to you is if you knew that a developer was building a system that did not emit those emissions and actually met severe non-attainment standards, which is the strictest EPA standard, would you feel differently about it? [00:10:02] Speaker 1: I just have to clarify the legal standard. He did not have permits. That's literally what our lawsuit is about, that he started operating without Clean Air Act permits. Not only did he not have the permits, they tried to ask Shelby County whether or not they needed permits because they were already operating. The county then was like, "Well, the EPA needs to answer this question." They're like, "Well, we're already operating." So that is actually not up for discussion. That's not something that they're even challenging. They're not challenging that they were operating without a permit. They're challenging whether or not they had some type of exemption that hasn't existed in over 40, 50 years of the Clean Air Act. [00:10:44] Speaker 2: Because their generators were temporary. Because they installed mobile generators to get started. I'm very, very familiar with the case. [00:10:52] Speaker 1: Yeah, it's just that what you said was that he had permits and that is just not true. But to your point regarding whether or not an industry or company, whether or not they have the permits, that is a conversation that needs to ensure that the community is a part of the next steps. So what we're seeing, unfortunately, is that by the time it gets to the permitting stage, the company's name has changed five times. So everyday people are trying to follow along, figure out what might be happening from the pipeline being built to different construction permits, and then all of a sudden there is an air permit that is moving forward is a completely different name company. And unfortunately, the city council members and local elected officials have signed NDAs. And so people aren't even able to engage in the process authentically. And that's a problem. It's a problem that, you know, it is being shared like, oh, well, as long as people get, as long as there's a permitting process, well, we're seeing what's happening as it relates to that. The EPA is literally right now trying to roll back the protections for people being able to engage in the process. There is a public participation requirement right now, even for minor sources of pollution. The EPA just closed a comment period where they were saying, actually, we don't think that needs to exist anymore. And guess what many of these data centers have utilized in order to get their permits? Minor sources of pollution. [00:12:32] Speaker 2: Well, do you know, you do know that in order to get a minor source permit, you have to deliver minor source emissions. There are, let me just finish and get a couple of words in edgewise here. [00:12:42] Speaker 3: Speak to emissions generally as well. Because by the way, I don't want to get bogged down in your projects or in those that you're opposing, because I'm trying to keep it at a certain level for a national audience that applies all across the board. But emissions, address the emissions concerns. So start with emissions. [00:12:59] Speaker 2: Go ahead. So in order to have a minor permit where we build, you need severe non-attainment standard emissions control. It's very, very hard to meet. And so we designed a system that takes 98.5% of all of our exhaust off the back end of our generators. And we're the first ones to do it. And we actually went to major generator companies and got them to adopt that system in their execution. And we did that because people were concerned about early operators, including Elon, that use turbines. Turbines need water to cool and they have very, very large amounts of emissions. Legitimate point. On water, we don't use any water. The only water we use are bathrooms and sinks. That's just a fact. We went to carrier air conditioning and we came up with a system that's closed loop. You fill it once, you close it. That's the end of that. We don't use water. Light pollution, we don't create it. We use dark sky standards. We don't have vibration. We use isolators and rubber mats. And so if we were doing all the things that you're referring to, I would be your ally in opposing what we are doing. But because we have responded to people like you who care, we have come up with solutions to those problems. So the question I ask you, are you willing to have an open mind for the people that do solve those problems? And just for purposes of this discussion, just give me the benefit of the doubt. You can not give me the benefit of doubt after this, but just if what I'm saying is right, is it fair to say that the guys that do it right are entitled to build a data center? [00:14:44] Speaker 3: May I ask? Are there guys who do it right? Is there a right way, Abrey, of doing this or across the board are you a hard no? [00:14:54] Speaker 1: I'm not a hard no across the board, but I am opposed to narrative leading the discussion as opposed to the facts. And unfortunately, what we have seen as it relates to even what's considered a closed loop system is that it changes from company to company. When many facilities are really actually hard pressed on what it means to have a closed loop system, they give different definitions. They say, well, okay, yes, it takes less water, but it's not necessarily that it takes no additional water. Maybe it takes less water over time. So the answers keep changing. Additionally, I think that it is disingenuous to make it seem as though there is a project that isn't going to add more fossil fuel build out into communities. I have not seen one data center build out in this country to date that does not lead to more fossil fuel build out. And that is at the heart of what many of the concerns are from communities. And so to, to deprioritize that. [00:16:10] Speaker 2: Do you have a problem with what goes in to the generator or what comes out of the generator? Is your perspective that if they're utilizing fossil fuel, it's bad? Or is your perspective that the emissions that come out of a generator is harmful? Well, let me separate those two and address an earlier comment you made. Number one, fracking has made us oil independent. We produce more oil than any country in the world. And we can thank fracking for that. Number two, like anything else, when they got started, they didn't do it the right way because they had to learn and people like you called them on it and they responded. But today fracking is a very safe operation. Number three, it has created a lot of jobs in this state. The entire Western and Northwestern communities are dependent on the fracking industry. As to fossil fuels, I would just have you think about what the alternatives are. Because people underestimate, for example, electrical power, which uses a lot of fossil fuels to generate, including electric cars and other things that are viewed as being extraordinarily sensitive. I think the real issue should be what are the emissions and are they safe? And I'll give you an example. How do you feel about a fuel cell? Have you even studied them? Do you understand what they are and what the impact is? I mean, they have almost zero emissions. And the only thing that comes out of the back of those carbon dioxide, which is what I'm drinking in the soda water in my mug right now. And so what I would ask you to have an open mind to, and you're a very, very strong personality, and I'm very honored to be sitting across the table from you. I am much more on my game than I thought I would have to be. I studied you coming into this room and I knew I was in for a tough fight. I think that's a compliment. It's a good thing. But I underestimate the degree of tough. But I would ask you to consider, do the people who do it right, and you can determine whether they do it right or not, in your own mind, do they deserve to do what they want to do? [00:18:24] Speaker 3: Okay, I want to jump in and say, because I'm still unclear. I said at the outset, 4,000 planned, 800 in development. Are you okay with any of the 4,000 or the 800 that are being built? I'd just love to hear an example where you'd say Michael, you'd say Brian, and everybody else. Here's what doing it right looks like. Is there such an example? [00:18:45] Speaker 1: Not that I've seen. [00:18:47] Speaker 3: Okay, so just to be clear, across the board, you're opposed to all of them. [00:18:50] Speaker 1: I'm not opposed to all of them. I think that there are some where there might be an opportunity to turn things around. But unfortunately, a lot of the companies are utilizing the same playbooks. They're going into communities. They have been told that they talk to the local elected officials. That once they get signed off there, then the elected officials represent the individuals within the communities, that there are NDAs being signed. There's no community benefits that are really comprehensive to represent the amount of harm that is going into the communities. There is typically no decommissioning plan in place. So I can't say, you know, with a straight face, that I believe that even if a project is doing better than the others, I mean, the floor is down here at this point. It's so low that when you have a company that's like, look at us, we're not adding quite as many, you know, emissions into our project as this other project. So we want a gold star and that is not how we get to the actual progress that we need for the climate crisis that we're in now. I mean, the urgency really should be about the fact that we are off track in order to meet our climate goals, that we have an administration who's pulled us out of all of our agreements in order to ensure that we're good global partners, that we are experiencing some of the most severe and frequent climate related disasters. And a lot of that is related to global warming and fossil fuel infrastructure. That's what the urgency should be around, is ensuring that we are building out a future that allows for us to have a planet in the next several decades. [00:20:46] Speaker 2: So Abrey, do you drive a car? [00:20:48] Speaker 1: Yeah. [00:20:48] Speaker 2: What kind of car? [00:20:49] Speaker 1: An electric car. [00:20:51] Speaker 2: Okay. And what does it take to fuel that electric car? Have you thought about that? [00:20:55] Speaker 1: I'm not saying that we have all the solutions for every single problem. But I do think that utilizing a straw man argument to ask me about my one electric car versus a hyperscale AI data center is not even on par for the kinds of conversations. And utilizing a computer is also not the same argument. [00:21:20] Speaker 2: But do you use a computer? [00:21:21] Speaker 1: I just want to make sure that we stay on track as to what it is that we're talking about here. [00:21:23] Speaker 2: Well, we are, because I want to ask you some straightforward questions. Do you use AI? [00:21:28] Speaker 1: I mean, the AI that's forced on me. Yeah. [00:21:32] Speaker 2: But you do. So when you do a search, AI pops up and you make a request in AI. Do you have a check? [00:21:38] Speaker 1: So there are typically ways that I can try to get around doing searches in that way. [00:21:44] Speaker 3: In other words, you choose not to support artificial intelligence. [00:21:49] Speaker 1: I choose not to, to the extent that I am able to. [00:21:53] Speaker 3: You're watching Can We Agree, a civil debate program. There's plenty more where this came from. In the description below, click the link and check out the other episodes. You heard in the introduction when I made reference to the AI race that we're involved with, seemingly with China. Is that of consideration to this conversation as far as you're concerned? [00:22:15] Speaker 1: I think so. And let me just say- [00:22:17] Speaker 3: But before he says that, I may as well be the one to ask it. How do we win that AI race with China if projects like his all across the country are shut down before they get out of the box? [00:22:28] Speaker 1: Yeah. I think that the thing is, is that we don't have a clear vision of what we're racing towards. And that is why, you know, this sense of urgency is misplaced. We should be racing towards a sense of urgency of fixing the most prominent concerns of our time. If we put this much energy towards solving the climate crisis, I think that we could actually come up with infrastructure for large load energy projects that communities could get behind. And I'm not anti-technology. I'm not anti-moving us to the next steps. But I am anti-going and repeating the cycles of the past. That, yeah, they figured out some of the issues later, but think about the people. Think about the families that were implicated, who were harmed along the way. We can't just pretend like they don't exist. These are people's lives. And many of those people have seen generations of companies deprioritizing who they are as individuals. [00:23:36] Speaker 3: You mean folks in the community? [00:23:37] Speaker 1: In the community. Okay. [00:23:38] Speaker 3: How about, I wanted to ask this, so I'll ask it now. What about, he's seeking to build $18 billion worth of projects in Montgomery County, which by definition is not the community that the NAACP has traditionally represented. Is your opposition likewise, irregardless of demographic? [00:23:57] Speaker 1: It's about localized self-democracy. And so if people at the community level. [00:24:02] Speaker 3: Whatever the community may consist of. [00:24:04] Speaker 1: Whatever the community may consist of. Got it. It's about them being able to make choices that they feel they have the authority to make those decisions about. That is literally how our infrastructure is supposed to work. That we elect people at the local level, at the state level, at the federal level. And those individuals are supposed to be a part of a broader infrastructure to represent our concerns, our needs, not a few billionaires who have come and told us this is what the future is going to look like without our input being a part of it. [00:24:42] Speaker 2: So, can I ask you an honest question? Are you anti-business? Because it sounds that way to me. And if you are, I want to- [00:24:50] Speaker 1: I'm actually, I was a business major in college. So I'm obviously not anti-business. But I think that that is a not, I, there's been multiple questions that are a little bit- Well, I'm trying to understand- Outside of the realm here. [00:25:02] Speaker 2: I'm trying to understand, so we went through a list of concerns. You're worried about emissions, we've addressed emissions. You're worried about noise, we've addressed noise. You're worried about water, we've addressed water. You're worried about vibration, we've addressed vibration. All because, by the way, when I go to a township meeting, 500 people show up. And so they're very, very well represented. And I might argue that my property rights are denied in a lot of these meetings. And my lawyers and myself can't get a word in edgewise because people are screaming at me and not listening to what I have to say. And then accusing me of not answering questions. So what I would say to you is the fight for fight's sake. Or do you really care about the issues being addressed? And if those issues are addressed, are you willing to put your swords, your daggers and your guns back in your wallet and support those who do the right thing? [00:25:56] Speaker 1: We've never, I've never taken the stance that I do not stand on the side of people who are trying to do the right thing. [00:26:04] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:26:04] Speaker 1: Unfortunately, I believe that- But why is there a but behind that? Let me finish, let me finish. No, but I have a question. No, no, no, because I want to, because what you shared and then also what I'm saying and what I'm hearing are, there's a little bit of cognitive dissonance there. If the people who live there, if 500 people are showing up and say, we don't want this, they're the people who are going to have to live there. Why should their voices matter any less? Those are the people- I'm not saying they matter any less. Who are going to have to deal with the consequences of these concerns. And unfortunately, in the past, what has happened is that you have businesses that will come in and tell people, we know best. We know, like you, y'all don't know quite as much as us. Let us figure out all the technical pieces and you just trust us. And people are asking legitimate questions that are not being answered. [00:27:03] Speaker 2: So let's take them one at a time. So legitimate question is, get your emissions in line. Soft. Don't use our water. Soft. Don't take our electricity out of the grid. These are right out of your mouth. Soft. If those questions are being answered, then hold on. And if we really have the democracy that you're referring to, and if the community really matters, is that for everybody? Or is that just for the people who want to pick the fight? [00:27:33] Speaker 1: I will say this, if they are- [00:27:35] Speaker 2: Well, I'd like to get an answer to that question. [00:27:37] Speaker 1: Well, because I think that your question is- No, no. [00:27:41] Speaker 2: My question is a straightforward question. I'd like to get an answer. [00:27:44] Speaker 1: Well, because you said that you solve those problems. And I take issue with the fact that you've solved those problems. Why? [00:27:50] Speaker 2: How do you take an issue? What if I did? [00:27:52] Speaker 1: Because I don't think that a closed loop system necessarily solves all the water concerns. [00:27:56] Speaker 2: You don't have a combustion engine, so you don't have a radiator in your car. But if you did, that is- [00:28:02] Speaker 1: I've had. Okay. Okay. So how many- Let's leave this at the issue level and not- [00:28:08] Speaker 2: We're at an issue level, and we're addressing your allegation that a closed loop system isn't a closed loop system. How much water did you actually put in the radiator of your car? Ever. Would that be never? [00:28:19] Speaker 1: It's not never, but it's that the narrative makes it seem that it goes, that is in there, and then there's never another need for water again. And that's just not true. And I think that we all know that that's not true. Well, I know because I run millions of square feet. The problem is that the communication to everyday people, that nuance, the level of nuance that's needed for such an important decision is not happening. [00:28:49] Speaker 3: I'm glad that you reference everyday people. I have some everyday listeners that I would like you to meet because this has been a subject of lots of conversation on my SiriusXM radio program. So here's a sample of some of what I've heard, and then I'll ask you to respond to that which you find significant. Roll it. Should your state pause construction of new data centers? Mark, you're in Alabama. [00:29:15] Speaker 4: It's actually a matter of national security, and it's really important to us as a nation that we have our legislators that can work together so that they can protect citizens, they can protect our resources, and place some guardrails around this because we need these data centers. [00:29:32] Speaker 3: Steve, you're in Carmel, Indiana. [00:29:34] Speaker 5: Some of these companies are going to go under, some are never going to fill these huge buildings, and they're just going to be sitting empty in the middle of these cornfields. And once they do that, there will be no tax dollars received by local communities. [00:29:47] Speaker 3: Sarah, you're in Texas. [00:29:49] Speaker 6: They do take up such a vast piece of land that oftentimes is farm or ranch land. So if all of these big pieces of land are being taken up by data centers, what does that do to our agriculture and western industry? [00:30:01] Speaker 7: John is in Vancouver, Canada. One thing to be considered as a partial solution is to do what the Chinese have started to do. They put it underwater, and they've run the electricity by wind turbines above the data centers that are now underwater that can't be seen. There's no issues with water, no issues with noise. I don't think it's 100%, but it's a partial solution. [00:30:25] Speaker 8: Larry, Pennsylvania. I don't think a lot of people realize the tax implications of these data centers, these million square foot data centers being built in local municipalities, the influx of money to the local school districts and municipalities. If you were to tell people that if we build a data center in your backyard, your school taxes won't go up for 15 years, I'm sure that a lot of people's minds will change. [00:30:46] Speaker 9: Will, you're in Alabama. People are complaining about all the land that the data centers are consuming. Do these people also complain about the developers that are putting in huge, huge subdivisions? I don't hear any complaints about them expanding and the water they're using and the energy. [00:31:04] Speaker 10: Kim, you're in Missouri. One of the things that they're saying will replace the state income taxes is all this revenue that they're going to be getting from data centers. However, every time a data center is offered to a community, the community says no because they think it's going to use up all the electricity and all the water. [00:31:22] Speaker 5: Bill, Atlanta. It's really a big zoning issue. And I think that the communities that get smart and know about how to mitigate these issues, how to measure the impacts, and then how to get the right concessions out of these folks. But man, if you've got a building that local government doesn't have to worry about serving that's going to put tens of millions of dollars, it's hard to pass up. Nancy, you're in New Jersey. [00:31:45] Speaker 11: Three years ago, my summer electric bill would have been about $225. You know what it is now? 468. It's the cost of the upgrade that they had to do to the electrical ground for the data centers. That's what's charging us so much money. We have people that don't know what they're going to do or how they're going to pay their bills. Chris, Virginia. [00:32:04] Speaker 12: We currently have one being built right now. And I'd say the bad is the footprint is massive of the amount of land that's being disturbed. The raw surrounding houses are bottom line being decimated. But we just had two artificial turf fields built in a very rural county for the kids that was desperately needed. Skateboard park. Parks are being renovated. Would that money have been there if not for the tax money being generated by these data centers? [00:32:33] Speaker 3: A little sample of what I get on radio. We tried to make sure that we had some balance. Bray, let me ask you about some of those callers. So Larry said, essentially, they throw off a lot of money for schools. There was Bill who said, essentially, in the end, it's a big zoning matter. But those communities would be foolish to pass up all the potential revenue. And then at the end, it was Chris who said, a lot of good has come from these because of the parks. And the turf, I think, fields that he said that they built. Do you acknowledge the positive, at least in revenue, that comes from data centers? [00:33:06] Speaker 1: I think that the conversation around revenue is also nuanced. Because often times- She's not conceding anything so far, Brian. Not much agreement so far. Here, honestly, where I think I would be able to find some agreement. It's not around the taxes or the revenues. Because I don't think that that's really where it is. [00:33:26] Speaker 3: You don't think they throw off the money that- [00:33:28] Speaker 1: I think that there's offsets that happen. So sometimes there might be revenue that happens at the local level, but then at the state level, there's offsets. And so then the state is still ending up losing money. That's what we're seeing in Virginia. That's what we're seeing in Texas. [00:33:40] Speaker 2: Well, how do you say you're seeing that in Virginia? Virginia has been an absolute home run. [00:33:45] Speaker 1: At the state level, that is literally why they're in the midst of trying to figure out legislation that will not allow for data centers to be able to operate without actually contributing more into the economy. I mean, this is a live conversation that's happening in Virginia right now. I'm very familiar with the politics and the economics. Because they are losing money. [00:34:06] Speaker 3: Can I just ask you in a general sense on the revenue issue, which seems to be a point in your favor, at least according to the callers, respond to that. [00:34:13] Speaker 2: Yeah. So in Upper Marine School District, which is one of the places I'm building a data center, we will be paying over $30 million a year to the school district. That's $109,000 per teacher, $8,827 per student. Now, this is a school district where special needs education is escalating 30% a year, and they just can't afford it. And they've had to raise taxes almost every year to balance their budget. And we're offering them a surplus of over $8,000 per student per year and $100,000 per teacher. In Plymouth, the numbers are $8,800, I'm sorry, $2,700 per student because they have more students, and $38,000 per teacher. We make up in Plymouth 40% of the tax base of the entire town. So when you fly over Plymouth Township and you see the thousands of houses and the thousands of buildings, my one building, which is being built in a closed steel mill, which by the way, puts off way more fumes than any data center would ever put off, we'll make up 40% of the tax revenue of that township. These numbers are compelling. Today, I sat with all the labor unions from the laborers to the plumbers to the electricians to the painters. Finally, they're opening their mouth. One of the problems is the labor unions have sat back and allowed this whole issue to get pushed around. But I sat with them and said, guys, since when do you let 26,000 jobs get pushed out of your community? And as of today, that game is over. They're going to be speaking up. And what you're going to see is a major pendulum swing with the people who are absolutely affected in a positive way. I'll just give you an example. 83% of our jobs don't require even a high school degree. The average pay is $148,000. Name for me one industry that creates 26,000 jobs in a community of 60,000 people where you don't even have to have a high school diploma to make $148,000 a year. I ran a school district with 14,000 kids that I took over. It was the first private LBO of a school district in the country. And we had inner city schools, which were a block from public schools. Public schools, 16% reading proficiency. Our schools, one block away, 95%. What we focused on is getting jobs for those kids when they got out. And we didn't force them to go to college. We forced them to have a future that could have been a trade school, an apprenticeship, and a union. These data centers that I'm building based on meetings I've had with the labor units are going to create a need to bring thousands of young people into the trades. These are forever jobs with pensions, with health care, with benefits that people can build a life around. And the other thing people don't realize, you talk about Elon Musk. He made his investment back in seven months. And you have a chip industry, which started at 100 kilowatts per rack. And in two years will be a gigawatt, or I'm sorry, a megawatt per rack. And so the evolution of chips are such that they're going to be ripping them out and put new ones in. [00:37:43] Speaker 3: So this is your answer to me saying it's one guy with a flashlight when all is said and done. [00:37:48] Speaker 2: It's thousands of jobs and the trades never leave. [00:37:51] Speaker 3: Okay, I want to stay focused on jobs. There's a lot there. Love you to have the opportunity to respond. [00:37:57] Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that it's interesting that AI data centers are being seen as the pathway for jobs where you could have literally clean energy, large load energy projects in communities that could create the same types of opportunities. It's not like this is the only... The problem is there's no demand. I just want to finish. These opportunities did exist in previous administrations. But because this administration has prioritized fossil fuel infrastructure, that's why the projects don't exist the same way that they have in the past. But there is a demand for large load energy projects because unfortunately, that is also what's driving a lot of the utilities to wanting to have conversations around this because they need large load energy projects. That could continue to be a conversation with clean energy projects. In addition to that, we're not opposed to there being localized union hiring for jobs, part of... [00:39:05] Speaker 3: Just not for artificial intelligence or data center jobs. [00:39:08] Speaker 1: I think that the principles highlight jobs cannot justify the harm itself. We have to have... I mean, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. [00:39:16] Speaker 2: What's the harm of unemployment? [00:39:18] Speaker 1: The harm is about the types of jobs and the impact on the community that exists. And you can have jobs where people have long-term jobs, permanent jobs within their communities, where they learn trades, where they are able to be a part of a clean, renewable economy, green economy moving forward that doesn't put their families at risk along the way. And I think that there is a way that we can, if we were truly wanting to meet in the middle somewhere, I think that's a place where we could meet in the middle about the fact that we do need to have the communities who have been under-invested in for a number of years, that they need resources and investment in order to build... [00:40:03] Speaker 3: But Abrey, I think I'm hearing you say no amount of job growth is going to allay the concerns that you've expressed about data centers. Is that fairly stated? [00:40:13] Speaker 1: I think that the numbers are showing the jobs are in at most the like 100 level. [00:40:21] Speaker 3: But it sounds like no matter what jobs there might be, you're a hard no regardless. [00:40:26] Speaker 1: That's not my sense. [00:40:27] Speaker 3: If it's data centers. That's not my stance. [00:40:29] Speaker ?: Am I wrong? [00:40:29] Speaker 1: That's not my stance. My stance... [00:40:30] Speaker 3: Make it clear then so that I understand. [00:40:31] Speaker 1: Okay, so my stance is that the jobs cannot justify the harm. So we can't have just the conversation about jobs and not talk about the environment. [00:40:40] Speaker 3: But we are. I mean, I think we're going through all of them. [00:40:42] Speaker 1: Yeah, right. And so I think that what is important and we are seeing a lot more of labor have intersectional and nuanced conversations around the types of jobs and around the types of impact that it has in their communities. A lot of labor unions now have climate and environmental departments because they recognize that you can't just have a conversation about jobs without also understanding the impact and the well-being of the people who are actually going to be in those jobs moving forward. [00:41:19] Speaker 2: No doubt about it. But 26,000 is not 100. Let me just point that out to you. 26,000 is 50% of the population of the communities I'm in. And one of the things I've heard you say 15 times today, and I got to ask you honestly, I got to look you in the eye and I got to ask this question. It seems that no matter what I would tell you in this meeting, you don't believe it. And I'll just go down the list. I know what a closed loop system is. I own thousands of them. I own millions of square feet and I've been doing it since I was 17 years old. I've worked on them. I can fix them. I bought them. I've repaired them. I've managed them personally. Yet you don't believe a closed loop system is a closed loop system. I have an economic report that says we have 26,000 jobs. I sat with 18 leaders in labor today for hours. They believe the 26,000 jobs. The economist believes the 26,000 jobs. The longhand math supports the 26,000 jobs. Yet you think it's 100 jobs. Wait a minute. We talked about emissions. And you said we should have clean energy projects in our neighborhoods. I'm all for clean energy. I drive electric cars. I'm a believer. On the other hand, I'm not under the misconception that it takes a lot of fossil fuel energy to put electric in that car and to manufacture the batteries in that car and to make that car itself. I do like the concept of electric and I'm a forward thinker. The problem with green energy is partially the current administration. I'm going to give you that. But what really drove the pullback in green energy is the fact that it was 40 cents a kilowatt and the consumer won't pay five times for a kilowatt of energy that they can get from fossil fuels. And the reality is when they went to the consumers and said, we'll give you wind, we'll give you solar. But instead of paying 200 a month, you're going to pay me 1200 a month. None of them check the box. And so the only way those projects worked, if the federal government subsidized them. And so we can debate or not, I don't have a stand on this, whether Trump was right, wrong or indifferent to suspend what he suspended, or Biden was right, wrong or indifferent to spend what he spent. That's not for today's conversation. But the economics of utility bills have been very well documented. And the average consumer will not pay even $100 more for green energy. So as much as everybody, including you, want it and I want it, it hasn't been made economically viable. Now, there are future opportunities to fix that. And I'm working on it right now. And the best is nuclear because nuclear is economically viable if it can be built at scale, does not create emissions. And yet this country shut down nuclear power plants. I listened to a woman in New Jersey blame her utility bill and data centers. Has nothing to do with data centers. Has to do with the administration in New Jersey shutting down all the generation plants at a time where electricity demand was growing. And oh, by the way, we now have electric cars. We have five TVs. We have computers at home. We have cell phones getting charged. We use electric ovens versus gas. The average consumer is consuming a lot more electric. And so the reality is we agree on a lot of things. But what we don't agree on and won't agree on is if I know for a fact I'm putting 26,000 jobs in, I'm not going to accede to you that it's only 100. It's 26,000. [00:44:45] Speaker 3: There's a lot there that I'm sure you want to respond to. Go ahead and give me the answer that you wish. [00:44:50] Speaker 1: Yeah. I want to start with the idea that, you know, it seems as though there's a substantiation that all AI data centers are bringing 26,000 jobs. And that's just not true. Did you hear me say all? [00:45:11] Speaker 2: I said my data centers. [00:45:12] Speaker 1: But I'm talking, but the thing is, is that we're talking about, we're talking about all AI data centers. [00:45:17] Speaker 2: But Abre, if this is a fair discussion. [00:45:19] Speaker 1: I let you talk. So let me finish. So the numbers for the average AI data center, Hyperscale or not, when you look at other, there are reports like Good Jobs First. They've been reporting on this issue for over a decade. At this point, you're nodding your head. You've read them as well. So you know that the jobs are not actually there. And they've done this reporting across the country for a long time. When they ask companies, where are the jobs? The companies are not responding. And now we're at a time where everyday people are also asking the questions that many of the colleagues that I work with every single day have also been asking for a long time about the jobs. And the numbers are not making sense. In addition to the fact that now, yes, where there may be, there is an argument that future jobs that may come from AI and then construction jobs. And then if you pull all these pieces together, maybe you'll be able to cobble up higher numbers. But at the end of the day, we know that the majority of AI data centers are not bringing that number of jobs. [00:46:40] Speaker 2: Actually, we don't know that. [00:46:41] Speaker 1: Well, the things that we don't know is because companies are forcing elected officials to have that information under NDAs. But in addition to the fact that the reporting that has been done by Good Jobs First for literally years on this to highlight the lack of jobs that exist when it comes to AI data centers, there is still a lot of division, even when it comes to labor, when it comes to unions, about what their stance is at the broader level. Yeah, there are some concessions and some discussions that are happening at a local level. But at the national level, I can tell you that there is still, it is a still a very much an open discussion that is happening because not only is labor and unions not being brought into the discussion when it comes to AI data centers being built, they're also concerned about whether or not this actually makes sense for them. And so when you look at the national level, you will actually see that that is still very much a live discussion that is happening because there's lack of clarity. And for many of the build outs, there hasn't been unionized hiring. That's why they've been quiet is because they were shocked that in instances like in fracking with oil and gas companies, they were brought to the table earlier. They weren't brought to the table earlier. And I think I can say that definitively, that we all feel that we weren't brought to the table early enough when it came to AI data center build outs. And so now there's companies who are trying to say, well, it's this, it's that. Well, let us see for ourselves and we can decide whether or not the project makes sense. [00:48:35] Speaker 3: Okay. I'm going to give Brian the opportunity for a short response if he'd like. And then the hardest part of all, where can we agree in this complicated subject matter? Is there anything that Bray said? [00:48:45] Speaker 2: There are a handful of things I want to say. Okay. So you talk about real jobs, good jobs. That's very much a focus of my entire life. I'm an industrial recycler. I've spent my entire life taking closed down plants and replacing them with plants of the future. And like it or not, data center is the industrial plant of the future. So I consider $148,000 job for somebody that doesn't have a high school degree, a tremendous job. I consider a union laborer, union carpenter, union plumber, union pipe fitter, union metal worker, making on average 131 to 196,000 because I was corrected in a meeting today where I estimated 131. They said, oh, no, no, no, we're building the AWS data center in Fairless Hills. Our average employee is making $196,000 a year, which also doesn't require a college degree. And I care very deeply about that because I don't have a college degree. I don't have a high school degree. I didn't graduate from eighth grade. So education versus employment is something that's very, very, very important to me. But I can add, and 26 times 1,000 equals 26,000. You can cut it, slice it, debate it any way you want. 26,000 jobs are 26,000 jobs. And my buildings have 2,800 full-time jobs, not counting the construction workers that never leave. And if you want to use Virginia as an example, Loudoun County, 10 years of reduction in taxes. Most cutting edge schools in the country, playgrounds, fields, gyms. Absolutely the data center capital of the world. Go talk to people that live there. I have. Because I've been there and I know people who live there. Housing prices have gone through the roof. There's this theory that housing prices go down. I'll show you the data. Housing has done nothing but go up. Abilene, Texas, same. Best schools, lower taxes, higher housing. Where we are, $50 million a year to two school systems. There isn't a single business within 1,000 miles of us that pays $50 million a year to two school systems. So all your concerns are legitimate and need to be answered. And we're answering them. We're answering emissions. We're answering water. We're answering vibration, noise. All the things you care about we've addressed. But what I would ask you to do is keep an open mind that if you have an issue and your counterparty addresses that issue, what is the fair way to treat that counterparty? Now, you're a fierce battler of the highest magnitude. And that is what makes this country great, is because we can be heard. But at some point, if you're getting what you want, is it fair to be fair to the other side? And that's the only point I would say to you. If I really am, and you can doubt me all you want. You can force me to prove it. You can make me substantiate everything you're doubting. Everything. Fair enough. But if in the end my facts are true, don't I deserve your support? [00:52:07] Speaker 3: Short answer to that. I could listen to the two of you for hours on end. But we'll have to bring it to a close at some point. Quick response to that? Yeah, quick response. Will you take yes for an answer? I think is what Brian is asking you. If he meets the objectives that you've outlined. [00:52:23] Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that to the point that Brian has said multiple times about having an open mind. I think it's about developers and companies also having an open mind about whether or not they've actually met the requirements. And being willing to continue to listen if communities have said you have actually not met those requirements. If those requirements do indeed in the future get met, because I don't think that they've been met yet, then yes, I would love to see the day where all of the work that people who have had to fight to ensure that communities continue to be centered and not just the bottom line when it comes to their health, when it comes to the environment, when it comes to the climate and our our future, that that is actually centered. I will I would be happy to retire. [00:53:23] Speaker 2: Well, I don't want you to retire. [00:53:24] Speaker 3: I want you to become my biggest salesperson. Whatever the hot issue of the day, we're discussing it on Can We Agree? And there's plenty more where this came from. In the description below, click on the link and look at the other episodes. So the show is called Can We Agree? You even get a mug that says so when we walk out of here. Where can we agree? We can agree that open minds are a good thing, right? A hundred percent. Okay. We can agree that NDAs shouldn't be part of the process. [00:53:51] Speaker 2: Unless tenants require it. So you have to understand something about NDAs. [00:53:56] Speaker 3: Meaning if you represent a big AI? [00:53:58] Speaker 2: Yeah. So I'll tell you where an NDA is a legitimate concern. I have 550 people threatening my family, my wife, me, screaming at me in meetings. My tenants make me sign an NDA with them. Putting that aside, everything else we do is open book. [00:54:16] Speaker 3: Okay. But no NDA with a community, with a municipality is what I just- [00:54:20] Speaker 2: First of all, they're not signing them. So the ones we're in are not. Okay. Okay. [00:54:25] Speaker 3: You may have a different experience. Another potential area, the data center pays for the grid, not the widow who lives next door. [00:54:31] Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, the reality is we're not even using the grid. We build our own grid and we pay a hundred percent for it. And by the way, we take no tax breaks. We pay a hundred percent of our taxes. We've even agreed to enter into a pilot, which is a guaranteed tax payment over a period of 20 years. Next. So yes, a hundred percent agree. [00:54:49] Speaker 3: There ought to be, I took note of Abrey's point that it seems like the labor unions got the call late in this dynamic, but a good thing that unions are now being represented and a part of these projects. Is that on the list as well? Yeah. Okay. Anything else that you can give me where we've got agreement here? Because I'm trying to expand my list. [00:55:09] Speaker 1: I think, I hope that we agree that the community, the everyday people need to be centered in the decisions. [00:55:17] Speaker 2: Yeah. So not only do I agree with that, but I am overwhelmed with community involvement. And so what does that mean? I am dealing with hundreds, if not thousands of community members. Right. [00:55:33] Speaker 3: But I think her point is, and you ought to listen to them, I think is what she's saying. [00:55:38] Speaker 2: So let's talk about listening. [00:55:39] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:55:40] Speaker 2: Let's take them one at a time. $50 million to meet preferred, not required sound standards. I have buildings that I filed permits prior to any of these new data center requirements. Yet I met the standards anyway. $50 million. Billions of dollars to build a clean air microgrid. More than if I just put turbines in my backyard. More, we're spending it. Double utility bills on a closed loop system, which by the way, is a closed loop system. Because you're not using water passing through an evaporative system to cool. And a more expensive system, by hundreds of millions of dollars, we're doing it. Our buildings, including our utility buildings, enclosed and soundproofing. That is attractive. Have beautiful facades. So aesthetically they look good. Hundreds of millions of dollars. We're doing that. At what point do we get credit for listening to the community? We wouldn't be doing that if we didn't care about the community. And you know, what's interesting about what we do is we sometimes have to use the legal system to defend our rights. Just like I know because I read everything about you going into this meeting. You've successfully used the legal system. To defend the rights of people that you believe deserve that. And your passion today is always about the average person living in a community getting a fair shake. So I know you know what I'm talking about. But I've never used the legal system to cut corners. And that's where I think the difference should be. I am entitled to my property rights as a property owner and the zoning that I bought when I owned it. And I'm only recycling in my industrial businesses existing industrial. So sometimes I have to rationally use the legal system to protect those rights. [00:57:43] Speaker 3: Where's the agreement on this point? Because her argument is the community needs to be heard. [00:57:48] Speaker 2: Well, the agreement is if I'm spending billions of dollars to address the community's concerns. If I've checked every box that you and the community have laid out. And not only have I listened, but I've acted. It's one thing to listen. Something entirely different to put into action the steps that it takes. [00:58:05] Speaker 3: I mean, I have a question as to whether there's truly a move afoot in this country in opposition to data centers. The data suggests nobody wants them in their backyard. Or is it, I recognize we need them. Please don't put it here. Which I think is what you would say is the case. [00:58:24] Speaker 2: Well, no. Here's what I would say is the case. This is entirely fear-based. And for good reason. And you made an earlier point that I do agree with you 100%. [00:58:34] Speaker 3: Please, I want to add it to my list. [00:58:36] Speaker 2: Early adopters. I have a short list. Early builders of data centers did consume water. Did pollute the air. Were noisy. And did vibrate. And it's like early cars had horrible emissions. My father's 62 Impala. If you stood behind it, you'd die from fumes. Over time, because of people like you that call bullshit, pardon my vernacular, on what people like me are doing, you force change. And that's a good thing. Being judged on the past is fair. But not giving credit for those who did listen and act, I would say is unfair. [00:59:22] Speaker 3: I think that's well stated. Can you buy into what he just said? The early guy screwed it up. He's sitting here telling you, I'm trying to do it right. But please give me the shot. And if I check the boxes, be willing to say, okay. [00:59:37] Speaker 1: I think that's what I've said. That is what I've said. I've said that if the boxes are actually checked, I think the nuance is about whether the open mind point that you continue to bring up is being willing to have an open mind about whether or not you've actually checked the boxes. So I 100% agree. If the boxes are checked, yes. But you also have to have an open mind. If people tell you you haven't checked the box, you have to be willing to say, okay, maybe we didn't actually check that box. [01:00:13] Speaker 2: Well, the good news about what I do is the things I do are measurable with engineers, calculations, and metrics. And so whether or not I check the box is measurable. And I'll give you an example. [01:00:24] Speaker 3: And then we're going to shut down. [01:00:25] Speaker 2: Okay. Property line to a residential neighborhood, 50 decibels. They have machines that you put on the property line. You're either 50, 51, 49. There's no way to fudge that. Emissions. 25 tons of BOCs, 25 tons of NOx, 100 tons of HAPs, 10 tons, any one HAP. Measurable. You either met it or you didn't. Vibration. Measurable. Light standards. Measurable. We either meet them or we don't. So whether I want to convince you we meet them or I don't, believe me, people that are strong-willed like you have good teams of engineers that check on people like me. And so if we fudge it, they know it. [01:01:13] Speaker 3: Okay. And by the way, that's a good thing. That's a good thing. [01:01:16] Speaker 1: It's a good thing. That's how it's supposed to be. [01:01:18] Speaker 2: I give you credit and your colleagues for the improvements in my industry. Because sometimes we just don't know. It's not like we get up in the morning and say. [01:01:30] Speaker 1: And that's where the open mind. And so if the standards that are set now. Here we go. Go ahead. Come on. [01:01:35] Speaker 3: We're getting there now. Go ahead. [01:01:36] Speaker 1: If the standards that are set don't actually make sense for what we're seeing at this level of development and the standards. The people sometimes are further along than where the standards need to be. And that the open mind needs to be in the fact that the standards and what needs to happen might be two different things. And so community-centered, community-informed means sometimes going beyond what those standards are and recognizing that we are also evolving because this is a proliferation of problems that are happening all across the country at a rate that we have not seen. And so having an open mind about what that actually means regarding what is considered a standard versus what people are saying. Well, yeah. This, you know, in the past would have been okay for noise. But it's not now because of all these other things that are happening. [01:02:35] Speaker 2: Legitimate. That's happening all over the place. So I'm going to give you one closing thought to think about. [01:02:42] Speaker 3: You know that means I'm then going to give her the closing thought. [01:02:44] Speaker 2: That's okay. Go ahead. So I've been in industrial revitalization my entire life. And I've gone into communities like North Philadelphia and purchased massive factories that didn't have a single human being in them for 50 years. And I've met with governors and senators and congressmen and representatives and community leaders who have said, can't we bring industry back into our decimated industrial base? A town I used in another interview with Michael, Gary, Indiana. Car business left Gary. Gary is devastated today. I would say portions of North Philadelphia here in Philadelphia. This is our opportunity. And so I wrote a letter to the governor this morning, which he'll receive in the next couple of days. And I said, he once said, AI runs through Pennsylvania. I challenged him to say, AI done correctly runs through Pennsylvania. And I am proposing to him that he, the leaders of all our labor unions, who know more about building these things than any of us, because they actually do build them themselves and us put together the gold standard, the win-win, the one that does everything right. And then let's enjoy the economic vitality with it. And so if we can accomplish all that, that would be a terrific thing. [01:04:06] Speaker 3: Abrey, this time I mean it. Final word is yours. [01:04:08] Speaker 1: I think that Gary, Indiana is the perfect example of what it means to have a community informed decision making process. Because Gary actually was on the list for communities to have solar for all investments. And Gary actually just went through nearly two weeks without power. But you know what was getting power? The data centers that were in the community. People wanted solar. They wanted clean, renewable energy projects in the community. They didn't necessarily want those data center projects. And at the same time, where everyday people were fighting for their lives in order to survive, because they didn't have access to power. The data centers were not coming in to actually be good neighbors to people. And so I think that it's important when people are saying they have concerns around how these projects are moving and people not being at the center and projects not necessarily creating the opportunities, the future that we want to see, that Gary, we need not look further than Gary. Because if they had solar energy projects that were prioritized, they may not have been without power for two weeks. And that's also because of the climate crisis that we're in right now because of fossil fuel. [01:05:41] Speaker 3: Okay, I know him now. He wants a piece of that. No, I'm going to call quits with that. I'm exhausted. Okay. I'm not going to let him. [01:05:47] Speaker 2: Yeah. [01:05:48] Speaker 3: You're both great. And you know what? You're the embodiment of what I'm trying to do here in terms of having a conversation and figure out. And I'm going to go back and I'm going to watch that tape again myself because I think at the end we were getting there. Yeah. So I appreciate it. Abre, thank you. Brian, thank you. That was- Thank you, Michael. That was terrific. Appreciate you. Thank you. Brian. [01:06:07] Speaker 2: Thanks, Michael. Thank you. [01:06:08] Speaker 3: Thank you. Hey, thank you for watching. Please subscribe to our YouTube channel and go to smirkandish.com for more exclusive content. [01:06:24] Speaker ?: you