logo
Environmental groups warn Colorado lawmakers of risks from data center bill

Environmental groups warn Colorado lawmakers of risks from data center bill

Yahoo17-04-2025

Interior of a modern data center. (Stock photo)
A bill moving through the state Legislature to establish tax breaks for energy-hogging data centers could pose serious risks to Colorado's climate goals, utility rates and state budget, environmental groups say.
Senate Bill 25-280 was given initial approval by the Senate Transportation and Energy Committee on a 6-3 vote, after a lengthy hearing on Wednesday. Democrats, who hold commanding majorities at the statehouse, were split on the bill, with three joining the committee's Republicans in favor, and three opposed.
Sponsored by state Sens. Nick Hinrichsen, a Pueblo Democrat, and Paul Lundeen, a Colorado Springs Republican, the measure would create a 'Data Center Development and Grid Modernization Program' in the state's economic development office. Beginning in 2026, it would offer sales and income tax credits to incentivize investments in data centers and upgrades to electric transmission infrastructure. A nonpartisan fiscal analysis estimates the tax breaks would initially cost the state about $17 million a year.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hinrichsen pitched data centers — sprawling server farms that power artificial intelligence models, cloud computing services and other technology — as an economic lifeline for communities like Pueblo, which faces a looming drop-off in tax revenue because of the early closure of Xcel Energy's coal-fired Comanche Generating Station. To help the state meet its greenhouse gas emissions targets, Comanche's final remaining 750-megawatt generating unit is now scheduled to be closed 40 years ahead of schedule in 2031, with a local tax revenue loss estimated at $25 million a year.
'We're heading towards this cliff, and we have some significant challenges, but with data centers, we have a really, really unique opportunity,' Hinrichsen said. 'We have a prime geographic location. We have the energy capacity and development capabilities to support a data center.'
States rethink data centers as 'electricity hogs' strain the grid
But a nationwide boom in data center construction, largely driven by investment in AI, has stoked concerns about the electricity- and water-intensive facilities' impact on the environment, and what the surging demand for energy could do to utility rates paid by consumers. Data centers made up about 4.4% of all U.S. electricity demand in 2023, and that figure could rise to 12% by 2028, the Department of Energy estimated last year. In addition to large amounts of electricity, operators use millions of gallons of water a year to cool their equipment.
Megan Kemp, a policy advocate with environmental group EarthJustice, called SB-280 'rushed legislation' that doesn't balance generous incentives for data center operators with protections for Colorado communities.
'(The bill) fails to provide critical safeguards for utility customers, neglects to consider impacts on communities and undermines our progress toward meeting critical climate goals,' Kemp told lawmakers.
The bill's sponsors and its critics disagreed sharply during Wednesday's hearing on the outlook for the data center industry in Colorado in the absence of new incentives.
Hinrichsen said that while he was reluctant to pass legislation that would reduce state tax revenues in the face of a serious budget crunch, he had been convinced by 'hundreds of conversations over the summer and fall' that Colorado isn't competing effectively with other states for data center investments.
'What I have heard talking to folks in my economic development community, folks at the chamber of commerce, and those in the data center development world, is, 'It's not going to happen in our current framework,'' he said. 'This is an opportunity that we're uniquely poised to capitalize on, that we will not capitalize on, and 100% of nothing is precisely nothing.'
But Justin Brant, utility program director at the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, a Boulder-based environmental group, pointed to requests for over two gigawatts of new electricity load received by Xcel Energy, Colorado's largest electric utility.
'Data centers are coming to our state no matter what,' Brant said.
Climate advocates are especially concerned that surging data center demand could lead electricity providers to prolong the use of fossil-fuel-powered generating assets, a trend already seen in the southeastern U.S., where utilities are expanding natural gas infrastructure to meet the anticipated demand increase.
Sara Axelrod, head of public affairs at Denver-based Crusoe Energy, told lawmakers of the 'cocktail of energy solutions needed to power campuses like this.' Crusoe began in 2018 as a bitcoin mining operation powered by the waste methane from oil and gas extraction — excess natural gas that's typically vented or flared by drillers — and now uses the same power source to power AI infrastructure.
'There is no perfect, one-size-fits-all energy solution when it comes to powering these data centers, particularly as we talk about AI and the increasing scale of these data centers,' Axelrod said.
Committee members adopted five amendments to the bill on Wednesday, including a major rewrite known as 'strike below' amendment, which Hinrichsen said was intended to address concerns from labor groups.
But Brant said that while the amendment did 'address some of our concerns, it raises a whole host of additional ones,' including questions about geographic preferences for data center sites and the applicability of the state's renewable energy standard.
'This bill was written by the data centers with little or no stakeholder involvement,' he said. 'We'd be happy to work with them and the sponsors in the interim to get something right, but this one doesn't do it.'
'There's so many big things that still need to be ironed out, that I'm really concerned,' said state Sen. Lisa Cutter, an Evergreen Democrat who voted against the bill. 'I think you're trying to address some of these things. But it just seems like there's still a lot to be discussed.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Bill to amend medically assisted suicide law draws emotional debate from Maine lawmakers
Bill to amend medically assisted suicide law draws emotional debate from Maine lawmakers

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Bill to amend medically assisted suicide law draws emotional debate from Maine lawmakers

Jun. 9—AUGUSTA — A proposal to allow doctors to waive the waiting period for terminally ill patients who want to be given life-ending drugs drew an emotional debate from lawmakers in the Maine Senate Monday before it was rejected by one vote. The fate of the bill is unclear after the Senate voted the proposal down 18-17. It passed 74-64 in the House of Representatives last week and faces another round of votes in each chamber before it could be sent to Gov. Janet Mills for her signature. The bill would amend a 2019 law known as the Death with Dignity Act, which legalized physician-assisted suicide in Maine. It allows certain terminally ill patients to have the option to receive life-ending medication so they have control over their death. Maine's law currently requires a 17-day waiting period from when a person requests the medication to when they can receive the prescription. The change under consideration, LD 613, would allow a doctor to waive all or a portion of the waiting period if they determine it would be in the patient's best interest. Mills supported the original Death with Dignity Act, but it's unclear if she would support the change. Spokespeople for the governor did not respond Monday to questions about whether she has taken a position on the bill. The proposal allowing for the waiting period to be waived drew emotional debate from lawmakers who spoke about how they've personally been affected by illness and death. "This is not an abstract issue for me," said Rep. Kathy Javner, R-Chester, who has metastatic breast cancer, during last week's House debate. "I am living this reality and stand before you today, not in despair, but in hope that we can preserve the dignity and meaning of life, even in the shadow of death." Javner, who was against the change, said removing the waiting period would take away the time that families and physicians currently have to reflect and consider alternative options. "Let us not respond to suffering with surrender," Javner said. "Let us respond with compassion, with presence, with resources for pain management, with palliative care, with love." Senate Minority Leader Trey Stewart, R-Presque Isle, talked about his mother, who died at age 50 from colorectal cancer, during Monday's Senate debate. Stewart said his mother "broke out" of hospice care in order to be at home with her family at the end of her life. "I will always be grateful for that extra month we got," Stewart said. "I worry about the scenarios about what if they don't get it right and what opportunities are we forestalling through this," he added. "This was the promise that was made originally with this policy, that there wouldn't be that knee-jerk opportunity because of this protection." Maine is among 10 states and Washington, D.C., where physician-assisted suicide is legal for people with terminal illnesses, according to Death With Dignity, an organization in Portland, Oregon, that advocates for the laws as a means of improving how people with such diagnoses die. Waiting periods for medication vary state to state and can range from one day to more than two weeks, according to Death With Dignity. Some states do allow waiting periods to be waived if the patient is unlikely to survive. Maine's Death with Dignity Act has been used by 218 people since it was enacted, according to Michele Meyer, D-Eliot, the sponsor of LD 613. But another nine people have died during the waiting period because their illnesses progressed too rapidly, Meyer said last week. She said the bill does not change the law's criteria that the patient be terminally ill with a six-month prognosis confirmed by two doctors and that they have the capacity to make informed decisions. "This is simple and straight forward," Meyer said. "It corrects a rare situation that never should have existed in the first place. Some of us will not know the gift of a long, healthy life. ... Medical aid in dying offers decisionally capable adults an option to avoid prolonged suffering." In the Senate Monday, Sen. Tim Nangle, D-Windham, talked about his father's lung cancer and the pain he suffered. Nangle said he didn't know if his father, who lived in another state, would have used the Death with Dignity Act, but he said the option for the time waiver should be there. "This is about their choice," Nangle said. "What do they want to do?" Copy the Story Link

In the battle of Trump v Newsom, the president is winning the public
In the battle of Trump v Newsom, the president is winning the public

Yahoo

time30 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

In the battle of Trump v Newsom, the president is winning the public

In the on-going Battle of Los Angeles, California governor Gavin Newsom may have the law on his side – but his adversary president Donald Trump has the most powerful imagery. The conflict began in Los Angeles on Friday, when mobs of protestors attacked agents of the US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), who were trying to serve warrants on specific illegal immigrants at a Home Depot and also at a clothing store. On Saturday, during a protest in front of a nearby Department of Homeland Security (DHS) office, members of the crowd lit fires and threw rocks at federal officers, who defended themselves with tear gas and non-lethal ammunition. Later that day, president Trump authorised the deployment of 2000 members of the National Guard to protect the federal ICE agents; since then 700 American Marines have been added to the federal force. Governor Newsom and other leaders of the Democratic-dominated California have claimed that Trump's actions were not needed because local and state authorities had the situation under control. And yet on Sunday, following three days of violence and arrests, the Los Angeles Police Department declared downtown Los Angeles an 'unlawful assembly' area. And on Monday the state of California sued the Trump administration, claiming that Trump 'illegally acted to federalise the National Guard,' in the words of Newsom. Typically a governor requests a president to federalise and mobilise the National Guard to deal with riots or natural disasters. For example, consider the Los Angeles riots of 1992. It was sparked by the acquittal of four white police officers who beat a black motorist named Rodney King and it led to more than fifty deaths and a billion dollars of damage; in response a Republican California governor Pete Wilson asked a Republican president George HW Bush to federalise the National Guard. Not since 1965, when president Lyndon B. Johnson sent the National Guard to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators, has a president sent troops without a governor's request. While California officials might be able to make a legal case against the Trump administration, the state and the Democratic party risk losing in the court of public opinion. Viral photographs show masked rioters waving Mexican flags in front of burning cars and debris, supporting the Trump White House's inflammatory claims about an immigrant invasion. In a shrewd public relations move, the federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has released mug shots under the heading: 'ICE Captures Worst of the Worst Illegal Alien Criminals in Los Angeles Including Murderers, Sex Offenders, and Other Violent Criminals.' The rogues' gallery contains illegal immigrants from a number of countries including Vietnam, the Philippines, and Mexico, charged with offenses including attempted rape, assault with a deadly weapon, grand theft larceny, distribution of heroin and cocaine, wilful cruelty to a child and other serious crimes. Democrats recently succeeded in reversing the allegedly unlawful deportation to El Salvador of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an illegal immigrant from El Salvador who was granted the right to remain in the US by a federal immigration judge. But on his return he was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of being an MS-13 gang member who has smuggled thousands of illegal immigrants, drugs, and firearms in the US. Democratic strategists might ask whether someone like Abrego Garcia should be the face of the Democratic party. At least, unlike some of the rioters cavorting in front of burning wreckage in LA, he does not wear a mask. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

After LA, Trump hard launches new First Amendment: Only MAGA can protest
After LA, Trump hard launches new First Amendment: Only MAGA can protest

USA Today

time34 minutes ago

  • USA Today

After LA, Trump hard launches new First Amendment: Only MAGA can protest

After LA, Trump hard launches new First Amendment: Only MAGA can protest | Opinion Rule No. 1: No protesting unless it's something Trump wants you to protest. Show Caption Hide Caption Australian journalist shot with a rubber bullet in Los Angeles Australian journalist from 9News, Lauren Tomasi, was shot with a rubber bullet while reporting from the protests in Los Angeles. President Donald Trump and his band of faux-macho nogoodniks keep poking the city of Los Angeles, hoping it will squeal and create the kind of violent theater that gives right-wing media its life force. First they sent in the National Guard to address predominantly peaceful anti-ICE protests, but the sprawling city failed to adequately burn. Now they're sending in U.S. Marines to get the job done. It's an intentional, dangerous and wholly unnecessary provocation. And based on how Trump and other Republicans have reacted to the ongoing protests, we should all be clear on the administration's new rules for protesting in America. Rule No. 1: No protesting unless it's something Trump wants you to protest For those who engage in liberal activities like reading and 'seeing things with your own eyes and believing they're real,' it might seem odd that the man who praised Jan. 6 insurrectionists as "great patriots" and then pardoned them all has the gall to call LA protesters 'insurrectionists.' Technically, there's nothing about the California protests that would make them an insurrection, while everything about the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, an effort to overturn a free-and-fair election, made it an actual insurrection. But that kind of fact-based thinking is now illegal, and protesters in Los Angeles and elsewhere need to understand that the First Amendment only applies to things Trump and Republicans want to hear. As border czar Tom Homan said on June 9 about the LA protesters: 'I said many times, you can protest. You get your First Amendment rights. But when you cross that line, you put hands on an ICE officer, or you destroy property or ICE says you impede law enforcement … that's a crime. And the Trump administration is not going to tolerate it.' Opinion: Trump lied about LA protests to deploy the National Guard. He wants violence. Correct. Unless you're a pro-Trump protester. In which case, breaking into a federal building, beating the snot out of police officers and destroying property is patriotic and easily pardonable. Rule No. 2: Protesters can only use American flags Video of California protesters waving flags from Mexico and other countries really upset a number of Republicans who have apparently never been in Boston on St. Patrick's Day. Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma said: 'This is an American city, and to be able to have an American city where we have people literally flying Mexican flags and saying 'you cannot arrest us' cannot be allowed.' If those protesters were waving a good old-fashioned American flag, it would be an entirely different story. But in Trump's America, flag choice matters. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called out 'left-wing radicals carrying foreign flags.' Vice President JD Vance declared on social media: 'Insurrectionists carrying foreign flags are attacking immigration enforcement officers.' MIND THE FLAGS, PEOPLE! The rule seems pretty clear. Your First Amendment right only allows you to carry an American flag, unless you are a Trump supporter during an actual insurrection, in which case you can carry a Confederate flag, replace an American flag with a Trump flag or use an American flag on a pole to beat a police officer. Opinion: Three ways the Trump-Musk feud revealed the GOP's twisted hypocrisy Rule No. 3: No spitting on or disrespecting law enforcement officers In response to some LA protesters allegedly spitting on authorities, Trump declared on social media June 9: ' 'If they spit, we will hit.' This is a statement from the President of the United States concerning the catastrophic Gavin Newscum inspired Riots going on in Los Angeles. The Insurrectionists have a tendency to spit in the face of the National Guardsmen/women, and others. These Patriots are told to accept this, it's just the way life runs. But not in the Trump Administration. IF THEY SPIT, WE WILL HIT, and I promise you they will be hit harder than they have ever been hit before. Such disrespect will not be tolerated!' Some might respond to this by saying, 'But the Jan. 6 insurrectionists whom you pardoned en masse did a lot more than just spit. They brutally attacked police officers, physically injuring more than 140 of them.' To which Trump would probably say: 'Shut up. Your First Amendment rights are hereby revoked!' Or he might say what he actually said when he pardoned hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters after he was inaugurated Jan. 20: 'These are people who actually love our country, so we thought a pardon would be appropriate.' To clarify, the people who Trump thinks love this country, demonstrated by them loving him, are allowed to express that love by defacing a federal building they broke into and viciously assaulting police officers. People who Trump thinks don't love the country, demonstrated by them exercising their First Amendment right to protest things he doesn't want them to protest, will be beaten up for spitting. Follow Trump's protesting rules, or he'll call in the troops It's clear as mud, folks. Americans across the country should feel free to get out and protest, as long as it's for the right reasons and done in a way that aligns completely with the beliefs of Republicans and the Trump administration. Anything outside of that and they'll call in the National Guard. And the Marines. And, I guess, the flag police? Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store