Ohio Economists Oppose Both Data Center Subsidies and Construction Bans
Panel of economists finds Ohio’s data center subsidies waste taxpayer money but warns against banning new construction as utility bills soar.
COLUMBUS, OHIO — A panel of economists has declared Ohio’s subsidies for data centers a losing proposition for taxpayers, while cautioning against banning new construction of large facilities.
The economic analysis comes as Ohioans face mounting financial pressures, with electric bills rising alongside executive compensation at utility and artificial intelligence companies. The average cost to cool a home is projected to reach $778 between June and September, while gasoline prices approach $5 statewide.
The economists surveyed last week concluded that subsidizing data centers represents poor public policy, but they also rejected calls for construction moratoriums on new large-scale facilities as equally problematic.
Utility Corruption Legacy
The debate over data center incentives unfolds against the backdrop of Ohio’s troubled utility sector. In 2020, federal prosecutors revealed that Akron-based FirstEnergy had paid $61 million in bribes to secure a $1.3 billion ratepayer bailout.
Governor Mike DeWine’s top utility regulator played a prominent role in drafting the corrupt bailout legislation, according to previous investigations. The scandal highlighted the outsized influence utilities wield in Ohio policymaking.
Economic Pressures Mount
The data center subsidy debate comes as Ohio families confront multiple financial challenges. Grocery prices remain stubbornly high despite broader economic trends, while healthcare access has deteriorated for hundreds of thousands of residents.
As many as 356,000 Ohioans are expected to lose health coverage under federal spending legislation, adding to household budget strains. The combination of rising utility costs and reduced healthcare access has intensified scrutiny of corporate subsidies.
The economists’ findings suggest Ohio policymakers face difficult choices between supporting technology infrastructure development and protecting taxpayer interests. Their rejection of both subsidy programs and construction bans indicates the complexity of balancing economic development with fiscal responsibility.
