Ohio Voters Went 0 for 21 on Data Centers. An Economist Says the Answer Is Not a Ban.

On November 3, voters in 18 Ohio communities weighed in on 21 local data center ballot measures. All 21 went against data center development. No other state came close: Ohio accounted for roughly half of all data center ballot measures in the country.

If you work in economic development, utilities, construction, or tech in Ohio, that result should get your attention. This week on Purple Political Breakdown, I sat down with Rob Moore, principal of Columbus based Scioto Analysis, whose firm just completed a cost benefit analysis of data center policy in Ohio. His findings make the debate more complicated than "build them" or "ban them."

The benefits are real, and they are shrinking

Scioto credits data centers with about 96,000 new Ohio jobs since 2013. Most of those are not jobs inside the buildings. They are the electricians, repair technicians, and local businesses that grow up around a facility. Moore pointed to research showing communities that get a data center see an employment boost that lasts for years.

The catch is diminishing returns. The first data center in a community delivers the biggest boost. The second delivers less, the third less again, while each one draws just as much power. That is where Moore sees Ohio today: costs starting to outrun benefits.

The costs most people are not counting

Scioto estimates about 16 billion dollars in higher electricity costs for Ohio ratepayers between 2027 and 2034 if planned projects move forward. That is the number that grabbed headlines. Moore argues the bigger one is public health. Powering data centers from a grid that still leans on coal and natural gas puts more fine particulate matter, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur dioxide into the air. Scioto values that at roughly 41 billion dollars, nearly three times the electricity impact. As Moore put it, we see our electric bill go up, but we do not connect a relative's heart attack to the power plant down the road.

What the numbers favor

The study scored five scenarios. Keeping the status quo barely broke even. A construction ban did better. But the top performer was a requirement that new data centers generate their own power "behind the meter," mostly from renewable sources. Developers keep building, ratepayers stop absorbing the grid costs, and emissions fall.

The incentive lesson

Ohio has offered data centers a sales tax exemption since 2013. It was expected to cost about 136 million dollars in 2025. It cost about 1.57 billion, roughly 11 times the estimate, and Governor DeWine paused new exemptions in May. Moore's point was not that incentives are always bad. It is that nobody built in a cap. Citing economist Tim Bartik of the Upjohn Institute, he argued the smarter incentives are job training for local residents, infrastructure that stays useful if a project fails, and clawbacks that actually get enforced.

Why this matters now

Ohio will have divided government in January for the first time since 2010. Data center concerns cut across party lines, which makes this one of the few issues where the incoming administration and the legislature could find real agreement. Local governments already have authority to ban or pause projects, and many are using it. A statewide framework could stop communities from competing against each other in a race to the bottom.

I am not anti data center, and neither is Moore. But this conversation convinced me the policy debate has to move past yes or no and toward who pays, how the power gets made, and what communities get in return.

Full conversation with Rob Moore: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/should-ohio-ban-data-centers-what-a-cost-benefit/id1626987640?i=1000801920321

Scioto Analysis study: https://www.sciotoanalysis.com/news/scioto-analysis-releases-cost-benefit-analysis-of-data-center-policies-in-ohio