Vermont Conservation Voters has launched a campaign aimed at stopping large-scale data center development in Vermont, warning that such facilities could drive up electricity costs and create environmental and quality-of-life problems.
The morning newsletter of the Journal-Opinion reports the group announced its “Don’t Data Center Vermont” campaign Wednesday amid growing debate across New England over the enormous amounts of electricity required by data centers, particularly those supporting artificial intelligence and other computing operations.
“The threat of data centers is real in Vermont and a governor veto in June has left Vermont unprotected and at risk,” Vermont Conservation Voters Executive Director Dan Fingas said.
Fingas said large data centers elsewhere have been blamed for higher energy costs, water consumption, noise and air pollution.
“We must protect Vermonters and our communities, and let the billionaire Big Tech corporations who are building them know that Vermont is not for sale,” Fingas said.
The campaign comes as neighboring New Hampshire confronts its own debate following reports that a large data center could be developed in Bow.
New Hampshire state Sen. Tom Cormen, a Lebanon Democrat, said he plans legislation imposing a 24-month moratorium on data center development and another bill requiring facilities consuming at least 30 megawatts of electricity to pay the costs associated with their operations. Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte has also said she is open to considering a moratorium.
The debate could be significant for Vermont as policymakers weigh the economic benefits of data centers against their demands on the electric grid. Loudoun County, Virginia, for example, has become one of the nation’s largest data-center hubs, with roughly 200 facilities and dozens more planned. The industry has helped dramatically expand the county’s commercial tax base.
Roadless-rule debate reaches Vermont
A Vermont conservation advocate is also warning that a federal proposal to repeal the U.S. Forest Service’s 2001 Roadless Rule could affect some of the region’s best-known outdoor destinations.
Zack Porter, executive director of Standing Trees, wrote in a Rutland Herald commentary that rescinding the rule could expose currently protected National Forest lands to additional road construction, logging and other development.
Porter pointed to landscapes associated with the Long Trail and Appalachian Trail, as well as Mount Moosilauke and the Kancamagus Highway in neighboring New Hampshire.
He argued that keeping National Forest roadless areas intact protects wildlife habitat and streams while reducing potential flooding impacts and preserving recreational areas.
White River Junction VA reports data breach
WHITE RIVER JUNCTION — The Veterans Affairs Medical Center in White River Junction has notified veterans of what it describes as an “unintentional data breach” involving personal health information.
According to an alert issued by the VA, several unencrypted communications containing veterans’ personal health information were sent between June and July 2026.
The VA said there is currently no indication that the information was compromised.
Veterans with questions or concerns may call 844-838-5433 Monday through Friday between 8 AM and 4:30 PM.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Business, Environment
The best solution is to send it back to local government. Most don’t know of the horrible impact of Section 248 in Vermont which gives power to the PUC (Public Utilities Commission) to approve ground solar and more using a so-called Certificate of Public Good. These certificates by-pass local government. A solar company with a homeowner may get a Certificate of Public Good and install horrific ground solar without abutters being informed or given an opportunity to fight. Towns often aren’t informed. I have personal experience with this. Even discussions with the Vermont League of Cities and Towns think local control would be appropriate. My opinion is that Solar, Windmills, and Data Centers should be the decisions of local government…not the state, nor it’s appointed powerhouses like the PUC.
Brian Kilmeade had a guest on his show 9/3 in the last 20 minutes of it that said this campaign against data centers is an organized and manufactured by China to make sure China comes out on top. It’s a propaganda campaign. The guest said Musk deleted thousands of bots from X on this topic. The guest likened this to the anti-fracking propaganda back in the day. Data centers recycle their water use. They certainly don’t use more water than ski areas who make snow, or cannabis growers. They do need to produce their own electricity, though.
I love how all these data center apologists are not mentioning the noise pollution and ground vibration. For me, that is the number one reason why we need to hold off on these in Vermont until the technology addresses these problems.
The way Vermont’s geography is set up, putting a data center in the wrong place would immediately reduce the value of all residential and farm areas to $0, because nobody wants to live next to something that makes the noise and vibration of a 4 lane highway 24/7, including animals.
Gina,
Whether those vibrational claims are true, go check out all the dead industrial parks near Springfield, Bennington, and Brattleboro (right next to I-91). Those are the ones I’m familiar with – there are doubtless many more.
The whole data center/AI boom will evaporate, and you will get a bunch of climate-controlled fitness centers that put more energy into the grid than they consume.
By the way, as to water requirements, check out how residential geothermal climate control, blessed by Vermont, works. Notice the parallels.
This is a HUGE transfer of wealth from Wall Street to Main Street, and the antis are kicking manna into the pig sty. After covid, how many more psyops do you need to see?
Lump this anti-data center noise with Jim Cramer on CNBC. Do the opposite and you’ll come out on top. And of course, Vermont will fumble, bumble, and virtue signal its way further into oblivion. Enjoy being a Chinese oxygen bar.
I doubt Vermont has to worry about large data centers being built in Vermont. The permitting process, even if approved, would take 10 years. We won’t even address the added cost of permitting and high cost of electricity.
When you look objectively, Vermont is well suited for data centers with our abundance of both renewable electricity and water. The downsides are pervasive NIMBYism codified into our state and local development restrictions and high electric rates, also imposed by government, so dont look for any siting proposals soon. This opposition is mostly moonbat posturing that the lobbying group Vermont Conservation Voters and others will exploit for fundraising. They will rake it in from ignorant moonbats who overtly obsess over this issue like they do with climate change or homelessness.
The Morristown Selectboard voted unanimously Monday night for a two-year moratorium on data centers so that it could define in its bylaws the exact parameters which constitute “high impact use” projects, under which definition some data centers would probably be classified. They want to be proactive and due their due diligence before welcoming such projects carte Blanche, rather than reactive, which the town has been known to be.
These parameters include megawatt electricity usage, decibel levels, water usage, PFAS and other pollutants, and a few other factors. They want time to consider all sides of the issue to prevent unintended consequences, both pro and con.
For example, if they outlaw data centers in our backyard simply because of the name or current opposition against them, they might also be unnecessarily discriminating against those which might not exceed the thresholds they draft into the bylaws. That’s why “high impact use” seems to be a more overarching definition which is realistically what they would want to control for the purpose of mitigating possible negative environmental and community impacts
For example, the concern was raised that if we are in a drought, but these high impact use projects use many thousands of gallons per day, what will that do for the water table and people’s wells, etc.?
And Morristown is still dead smack in the middle of the industrial park debacle in which the company building the park declared to the DRB that ten years of mining and crushing silica-laden rock to level a knoll was only “incidental” to the project. Words have meaning, and the word “incidental” has now been far more narrowly defined by the Planning Commission to prevent things like that from getting through in the future. It’s not that Morristown’s residents and abutters are against the industrial park per se, but rather all the dust, health risks, noise, and vibration to which they would be subjected for the next ten years.
There are many unknowns right now, so it seems like a good call by the selectboard. If current hydro and electrical infrastructures are being stretched right now, how much more burden impact—financial and resource wise—will the residents be able to realistically shoulder?
On the other hand, technology changes so rapidly, who knows what this scene will look like in a few years, both for good or for ill?
My personal concern is the huge potential for mass surveillance and infringement upon privacy rights. If they want better PR on this topic maybe stop utilizing eminent domain and stealing people’s private property. This issue crosses party lines.
Then take your mobile phone out and hit it with a hammer. Like Hillary.
Sounds like data centers are the same as the dot com, hemp, bell bottoms and wine coolers. Here today and gone tomorrow.
What nincompoops! They are funded by china to stop our lead in AI. As they have done with our electric energy.
The answer is to create contracts with the developers requiring to address common sense issues to to provide jobs and energy to the grid.
God forbid if these nincompoops were around before WWII 1/2 the country would be speaking Japanese while the other half German and Italian.