The Markley data center rises up above the Sacred Heart neighborhood of Lowell. (Jordan Wolman/CommonWealth Beacon)

WHILE GOV. HEALEY’S recent decision to pause data center tax incentives until stronger protections for residents and the environment are established is a welcome development, there is much more work to do. The larger question facing Massachusetts is whether expanding the data center industry serves the public interest at all. Before communities are asked to shoulder higher energy costs, increased pollution, and new environmental burdens, they deserve a meaningful voice in deciding whether these projects serve the public good and belong in their communities.

Massachusetts is at a crossroads as data center developers push to rapidly expand across the Commonwealth, arguing that the rise of artificial intelligence requires a new generation of energy-intensive facilities. History has shown that when new industries demand speed, it is communities that are left bearing the environmental and public health burdens.

Massachusetts has spent years confronting a legacy of environmental injustice, recognizing that working-class communities and communities of color have too often borne the burden of polluting infrastructure. Data center expansion risks repeating that pattern if communities are once again asked to absorb environmental and economic costs in exchange for vague promises of future investment. Residents already overburdened by peaker plants, highways, and industrial facilities are too familiar with being asked to bear the costs of polluting infrastructure, despite assurances that regulations would adequately protect their health and environment.

As residents in Lowell fight the proposed expansion of the Markley data center, we are already seeing familiar warning signs of past injustices: limited transparency, unanswered questions about environmental impacts, and growing concern about what this means for neighborhoods already facing mounting energy and climate burdens.

These concerns are not limited to Lowell. Holyoke recently became the first municipality in Massachusetts to ban future large-scale AI data centers, while Westfield passed a one-year moratorium to give the community time to better understand the potential impacts before new facilities are approved. This pushback reflects a growing concern that communities are being asked to approve large-scale infrastructure before basic questions about costs, environmental impacts, and public benefits have been answered.

Data centers require enormous amounts of electricity to operate. Massachusetts residents already pay some of the highest electricity costs in the country, while New England increasingly relies on expensive and highly polluting peaker plants during periods of peak demand.

The state is poorly positioned for unchecked growth in energy-intensive infrastructure, so without careful planning and oversight, this industry could worsen grid strain, increase reliance on fossil fuels, and drive up energy bills for everyone. Every major increase in electricity demand carries consequences for ratepayers and for the state’s climate goals.

Supporters often tout data centers as engines of economic development, but Massachusetts should carefully examine whether the promised benefits will actually materialize and whether they justify the environmental and economic costs. Unlike many industries, data centers can consume enormous amounts of electricity, while creating relatively few permanent jobs once construction is complete.

The environmental impacts also extend beyond energy use. At a time when Massachusetts continues to experience prolonged drought conditions and increasing pressure on water resources, the massive water consumption required by data centers raises serious concerns.

Across the country, communities are sounding the alarm about wastewater management, the use of diesel backup generators, noise pollution, and potential PFAS contamination for communities and workers associated with cooling infrastructure. And once again, these harms are unlikely to fall equally. Historically, polluting infrastructure has too often been concentrated in our most overburdened communities under the guise of economic development. Residents are promised speculative economic investment while being left to shoulder worsening air quality, public health impacts, and neighborhood disruption.

As Massachusetts considers how, and even if, data centers should move forward, the Commonwealth’s first responsibility must be to protect the health, safety, and well-being of its residents, particularly frontline communities that bear the greatest environmental burdens, rather than accommodating a new industry. If a project cannot clearly demonstrate that it will benefit the health, affordability, and quality of life of surrounding communities, it should not move forward.

Regulations alone cannot eliminate the harms of another polluting industry. Even if a proposal meets baseline requirements, the Commonwealth must retain the authority to reject projects that fail to deliver clear public benefits or that impose disproportionate burdens on residents, ratepayers, or overburdened communities. Community input must play a central role in determining whether the benefits of a project truly outweigh its costs.

Massachusetts has recently taken a step in the right direction by ensuring questions are answered before the data center industry is allowed to expand. Still, communities need a meaningful seat at the table through robust public engagement processes and legally enforceable community benefit agreements. Importantly, both state and local leaders must retain the authority to reject projects that fail to provide a clear net public benefit.

If Massachusetts moves forward with the data center industry, those decisions must be rooted in environmental justice principles. This means first asking, “What are our communities asking for and what do they need?” rather than giving large tech corporations what they want and then figuring out how to protect communities from the impacts of something they never asked for.

Communities are sending a clear message that residents deserve answers before decisions are made. And before we commit to a new generation of energy-intensive infrastructure, we must prove that the benefits outweigh the costs and ensure that residents determine what comes next in their communities.

Cynthia Mendes is Massachusetts director of Clean Water Action. Mireille Bejjani is co-executive director of Slingshot.