The individuals of northern Virginia have been dwelling with information facilities for a few years. The realm is house to the world’s largest concentration of data centers. In a survey we carried out, we discovered northern Virginians support development restrictions that would make information facilities extra clear and accountable to the general public. However they care about some sorts of laws greater than others.
As public concerns about data centers’ electrical energy demand and results on the surroundings and surrounding communities have grown around the nation, organized opposition to their development can be on the rise—not solely across the nation but additionally on the epicenter of knowledge facilities.
In northern Virginia, public protest and authorized motion led developers to withdraw a proposal for an 2,100-acre campus for as many as 37 data centers in Prince William County in early July 2026. Per week later, county officers cited that opposition when rejecting a proposal that may have rezoned one other 2,000-acre space elsewhere within the county to permit extra information facilities.
Our analysis explored Virginians’ views on living near and among data centers, figuring out what they give thought to their experiences and the way they wish to form future information middle growth initiatives which may come to their communities. Within the fall of 2025, we surveyed 1,004 residents of northern Virginia and the Richmond metropolitan space—houses of the 2 largest information middle clusters in Virginia.
What we requested
Moderately than asking whether or not they supported or opposed particular insurance policies, we offered survey respondents with pairs of coverage mixtures that mixed totally different coverage measures to manage information facilities and requested them which mixtures they most well-liked. These measures included places of the facilities, placement of energy strains, electrical energy charges, environmental results, reporting of vitality and water utilization, and necessities for public evaluation earlier than approval.
As an example, a respondent would possibly select between two mixtures. One mixture would possibly embrace energy strains being positioned underground and information facilities being allowed close to houses and parks, however environmental affect assessments not being required. The opposite mixture would possibly embrace above-ground energy strains, restrictions on information facilities close to houses and parks, and a required environmental affect evaluation earlier than approval.
Every respondent in contrast 5 pairs of mixtures. As a result of the coverage measures have been different throughout mixtures, the identical possibility appeared for various respondents alongside many mixtures of different insurance policies. This allowed us to statistically separate the affect of every particular person possibility from the remainder of the mix. In impact, we may see whether or not together with a selected coverage measure made individuals kind of doubtless to decide on a mixture, whereas averaging throughout the various mixtures of different insurance policies respondents noticed. On this method, though respondents evaluated full coverage mixtures moderately than particular person measures in isolation, we may decide the unbiased affect of every coverage possibility on their selections.
Seen and rapid impacts matter
Our evaluation reveals that residents most strongly supported insurance policies addressing seen, rapid, and tangible outcomes, together with requiring new electrical energy transmission strains to be constructed underground and restrictions on constructing information facilities close to houses, faculties, and parks. In addition they strongly assist common reporting of vitality and water use.
Our findings additionally underscore the significance that residents place on having a voice earlier than information middle initiatives are authorised. Public participation is ranked second among the many six coverage provisions in shaping residents’ preferences.
For a few years, many jurisdictions in Virginia have allowed builders to construct information facilities with out public evaluation, as long as the buildings meet current zoning necessities. The general public has usually discovered itself asking questions solely after main choices have been made.
As an example, in July 2024, residents of Fairfax County’s Bren Mar neighborhood raised concerns about a proposed 466,000-square-foot data center (concerning the measurement of three Walmart Supercenters), solely to seek out that native zoning legal guidelines allowed the developer to construct it and not using a public listening to or a lot evaluation or oversight.
In early 2025, Loudoun County, nicknamed “Data Center Alley,” ended automated zoning approval for brand new information facilities and required public hearings earlier than native officers selected the proposals.
Against this, the U.S. Environmental Safety Company underneath the Trump administration has moved to reduce requirements for public hearings for air-pollution permits from information middle initiatives.
Complicated points want clearer explanations
Our analysis discovered much less public assist for coverage provisions governing extra advanced points associated to information facilities. Particularly, respondents have been ambivalent about whether or not information facilities ought to be charged higher electricity rates than different prospects.
Infrastructure prices incurred to assist information facilities can finally cross right down to different prospects. In response to a Bloomberg evaluation, wholesale electrical energy costs close to information facilities more than tripled between 2020 and 2025.
As for retail value, in August 2026, Reuters reported that speedy information middle development in Virginia has compelled the native energy firm, Dominion Power, to rely extra on pricey wholesale energy, contributing to a proposed charge hike that would raise a typical residential bill by about $20 per month.
We consider that members of the general public can come to knowledgeable choices about advanced points. However earlier than they will achieve this, they might need assistance from technical specialists like those that work for native and state governments to obviously talk what’s concerned and the trade-offs at stake.
Progress and oversight can coexist
Given their assist for laws on information facilities, it’s tempting to imagine that the respondents to our survey merely don’t need information facilities of their communities. However, in truth, about 47% of respondents informed us they assist information middle growth of their space, whereas 25% are impartial and 27% oppose it.
These respondents weren’t merely saying “sure” or “no” to information facilities. They’ve opinions about how information facilities ought to be developed and which regulatory controls and safeguards ought to be in place.
Their views point out that supporting information middle development and strengthening oversight will not be competing objectives. Residents might welcome growth whereas anticipating governments to deal with destructive results, present alternatives for public enter and set up safeguards to guard communities. The problem for communities and their leaders shouldn’t be merely deciding whether or not to permit information facilities, however figuring out govern their development.
Fengxiu Zhang is an affiliate professor of coverage and authorities at George Mason University.
Saba Siddiki is a professor of citizenship and democracy at Syracuse University.
This text is republished from The Conversation underneath a Inventive Commons license. Learn the original article.
