A package of bills introduced in the Michigan Senate would take steps toward regulating some of the possible impacts of large-scale data centers.
The number of proposed data center projects in Michigan has exploded over the past year, after the state passed significant tax breaks to lure the industry here. The huge centers, which provide some of the infrastructure that powers artificial intelligence, require massive amounts of energy and water.
Three bills proposed by Sens. Rosemary Bayer (D-West Bloomfield), Sue Shink (D-Northfield Twp.), and Erika Geiss (D-Taylor) would start building a framework for regulating their environmental impacts.
Two focus on water usage. One would limit extremely large water withdrawals, preventing facilities that would require an average of more than 2 million gallons per day for “consumptive use” (water that is not returned to the larger water system) from obtaining a withdrawal permit. The other bill would protect taxpayers from paying for new infrastructure to facilitate increased water withdrawals.
A third bill would require the Michigan Public Service Commission, the state's utility regulator, to publish annual reports detailing data centers’ water and energy use.
“Given increasing public interest, reports of massive water and energy usage, projections of infrastructure upgrade requirements, and the simple need for transparency in a rapidly expanding industry, Senate Bills 761-763 aim to address concerns shared by many Michiganders,” the senators said in a statement.
The bill package, which the senators said has “bipartisan support,” was referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Environment for consideration.
The legislation was introduced last week, just as the Michigan Public Service Commission approved a controversial utility contract between DTE Energy and the developers of Michigan’s first hyperscale data center in rural Saline Township.
The fast-tracked contract drew fierce criticism from many, including Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who said the commission should not have approved it without a standard, thorough public vetting process. Commissioners say the contract has conditions and protections to prevent any increased energy costs from being passed on to ratepayers.
