Amy Acton proposed new conditions for approval of data centers in Ohio detailing requirements on union labor transparency and siting recently in a statewide announcement.
The proposal mattered because it tied state incentives to specific operational and community standards, seeking to shape how the expanding data center industry affected local economies, utilities and the environment. Ultimo aggiornamento: 29 July 2026.
Scope of the proposal and the conditional moratorium
Acton framed the plan as a conditional moratorium on new data center construction, requiring projects to meet explicit conditions before receiving state incentives. The conditions included controls on energy costs mandates that developers demonstrate they would not cause higher utility rates, and obligations that projects would pay for their own gas, water and electricity.
The plan stopped short of eliminating Ohio’s existing tax exemption for data centers, preserving the fiscal incentive while introducing new non-financial conditions. It left open which elements could be implemented administratively and which would need approval from the Republican-controlled state legislature.
Union labor, transparency and brownfield priorities
A central element was a requirement that construction, maintenance and operation of incentive-seeking data centers use union labor a measure presented as a way to secure higher wages and stable employment. The requirement would apply to all projects that sought state support, creating a uniform labor standard tied to incentives.
Acton’s plan also targeted the practice of secret deals between developers and local officials, proposing full public disclosure of contracts and negotiation terms to end nondisclosure agreements. The transparency measures were designed to ensure communities had access to economic impact assessments, developer commitments and long-term obligations.
Siting rules emphasized redevelopment of brownfields—abandoned industrial or commercial properties—over greenfield or farmland development. Environmental advocates endorsed the preference for brownfields as a way to limit sprawl and reuse contaminated or vacant sites for digital infrastructure.
Political responses and regulatory shifts
The plan entered a contested political field. A Republican gubernatorial candidate commented on the broader issue of energy responsibility during public appearances, saying, “If you use energy, you either bring your energy or you pay for the energy that you use. Period,” and arguing for faster approvals for power plants and pipelines to support growth.
Debate around the plan intersected with recent regulatory reversals. State environmental authorities considered a proposal to allow data centers to be covered under a general wastewater discharge permit rather than undergoing project-by-project reviews. The move prompted substantial public resistance—roughly 7,000 comments opposing the change—and the agency ultimately abandoned the streamlined permit option, leaving individualized environmental review in place.
Industry representatives expressed concerns that union mandates and transparency requirements could raise costs and add regulatory burdens, while labor groups supported the job protections embedded in the proposal. The plan therefore reframed the discussion over who benefits from data center development and how environmental and utility impacts are managed.
Uncertainty remained over which parts of Acton’s proposal could be enacted without legislative action and which would require statute changes. The proposal preserved the lucrative tax exemption, indicating a balance between preserving economic incentives and imposing new non-tax conditions tied to state support.
The unfolding debate involves state agencies, developers, unions, environmental advocates and utility regulators, and will hinge on administrative capacity and legislative choices as Ohio weighs whether to adopt the proposed conditional framework for future data center approvals.
