Georgia’s Data Center Boom: The Numbers Behind the Promise, the Power and the Price
Data centers could help make Georgia one of the centers of America's artificial-intelligence economy; due to vertical integration architecture and previous tax breaks. But the numbers show why the debate cannot stop at investment announcements and job projections.
Data centers have become one of the biggest economic-development stories in Georgia.
They are also becoming one of the state's biggest infrastructure questions. Artificial intelligence is accelerating a transformation that was already underway. What used to be thought of as a warehouse full of computer servers is increasingly becoming an industrial-scale campus with its own substations, cooling systems, backup generation, transmission requirements and sometimes millions of square feet of buildings.
The International Energy Agency estimates that data centers consumed about 415 terawatt-hours of electricity worldwide in 2024—roughly 1.5% of global electricity consumption. The United States accounted for about 45% of worldwide data-center electricity use. In 2025, global data-center electricity consumption then increased another 17%. And the scale keeps increasing. As of 2025, 600 hyperscale data centers located in the United States compose of 54% of the world's entire data center apparatus, according to a study at North Dakota University.
The IEA says a conventional data center may require roughly 10 to 25 megawatts of power. A hyperscale AI facility can require 100 megawatts or more. To put that in terms people can actually understand, a 100-megawatt AI-focused facility can consume about as much electricity annually as 100,000 households. The largest planned campuses are measured not in hundreds of megawatts, but in gigawatts. That distinction matters.
When we talk about data centers, we are not simply talking about another office park. We are talking about a new category of industrial infrastructure. And Georgia is placing a very large bet on it.
First, the Opportunity Is Real
It is easy for this debate to become one-sided. Supporters sometimes talk as though every data center is automatically an economic windfall. Opponents sometimes talk as though every data center is automatically a burden. The evidence supports neither extreme. There is very real economic value.
The Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts commissioned the University of Georgia's Carl Vinson Institute of Government to evaluate the state's high-technology data-center sales-tax exemption. Its corrected analysis found that the exemption itself was responsible for an estimated 8,505 construction-related jobs and approximately $1 billion in value added to Georgia's economy in fiscal year 2025.
The operations attributable to the incentive were estimated to support another 1,641 jobs and approximately $247 million in value added. Those are meaningful numbers. Construction of these enormous facilities requires electricians, engineers, equipment operators, concrete contractors, cooling specialists, utility workers, construction managers and an extensive supply chain.
Data centers also bring another potentially enormous benefit:
Property taxes.
The state evaluation examined several large metro Atlanta projects and modeled a representative three-building data-center complex worth more than $2 billion. At the average millage rate of the jurisdictions studied, that complex would generate a theoretical property-tax bill of about $33.6 million per year. After approximately $5.9 million in abatements, local governments would still collect approximately $27.8 million annually.
That means roughly 83% of the modeled property-tax obligation remained payable, while about 17% was abated. For a county, city or school system, $27.8 million in recurring revenue is not trivial.
And this explains why local officials can look at data centers very differently from residents living next door to one. To the homeowner, the project may mean noise, transmission infrastructure or changing land use. To a county government, that same parcel could represent tens of millions of dollars in annual tax revenue.
Both perspectives are economically rational.
But There Is a Catch: The State Tax Math Was Much Less Attractive
This is where the numbers become especially important.
Georgia created its dedicated data-center sales-and-use-tax exemption in 2018. The idea was straightforward: reduce the cost of locating these expensive facilities in Georgia and attract projects that otherwise might go somewhere else. But by 2025, the state had enough actual experience to ask the harder question:
How many of these projects really needed the incentive?
The Carl Vinson Institute's updated analysis concluded that only about 30% of Georgia data-center activity was attributable to the exemption.
In other words, researchers estimated that roughly 70% would have occurred even without that particular tax benefit.
That dramatically changes the cost-benefit calculation. Georgia forgave approximately $474.2 million in state tax revenue in fiscal year 2025 through the exemption.
The economic activity attributable to the incentive generated about:
$34.6 million in state tax revenue from construction, and
$6.9 million from operations.
That's approximately $41.5 million returned to the state treasury against $474.2 million forgone.
Put another way, the directly generated state revenue equaled only about 8.8 cents for every dollar of tax revenue exempted.
That does not mean the broader economy lost money. Construction activity, wages, supplier spending and private investment still generate economic value. But this is a crucial distinction for policymakers:
Economic activity and fiscal return are not the same thing.
A project can increase gross economic activity while still producing a negative direct return for the state treasury. That's why Georgia's policy has already changed.
In May 2026, HB 463 became Act 465. Among its provisions was the repeal of the state sales-and-use-tax exemption applicable to qualifying high-technology data-center equipment. Georgia has therefore moved away from the idea that data centers automatically require special state tax treatment.
The fight is shifting somewhere else. It's shifting to electricity.
The Real Battlefield Is the Power Grid
If you want to understand why data centers have suddenly become such a major political issue, follow the megawatts. Georgia Power and the Public Service Commission are undertaking one of the largest electricity expansions in the country. In December 2025, the PSC approved approximately 9,885 megawatts of new generating capacity.
Most of that additional energy is expected to serve new large-load customers such as data centers.
The Associated Press reported that the approved construction program carries an estimated construction cost of approximately $16.3 billion. Once financing costs and the utility's authorized returns are included over the life of those investments, PSC staff estimated that customers could ultimately pay $50 billion to $60 billion. Those are staggering numbers.
To understand the scale, consider this:
Georgia Power's expansion is designed to increase generating capacity by roughly 50%, with much of the demand being driven by data centers and artificial intelligence. That does not automatically mean residential customers will pay for data centers. In fact, Georgia Power and the PSC have implemented new protections specifically intended to prevent that.
In January 2025, the PSC approved rules allowing special contract terms for new customers exceeding 100 megawatts. The PSC said these customers can be required to pay not only site-specific costs but also appropriate upstream generation, transmission and distribution costs attributable to serving them.
Georgia Power now says customers of 100 megawatts or more may be required to:
pay infrastructure costs,
sign contracts lasting 15 to 25 years,
make minimum monthly payments even when actual electricity use is lower,
provide collateral or other financial security, and
make substantial termination payments if they leave early.
That is the right question for the debate.
Not:
“Are data centers good or bad?”
But:
“Who carries the financial risk?”
Can Data Centers Actually Lower Our Electric Bills?
This is one of the most contested claims in Georgia politics.
Georgia Power argues that very large new customers can ultimately benefit residential customers because they generate enormous amounts of new revenue and spread fixed system costs across a broader customer base.
The company has committed that incremental revenue from large-load customers will provide at least $556 million per year in rate benefits when it files its next base-rate case.
Georgia Power calculates that benefit at approximately $8.50 per month—or $102 per year—for a typical residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt-hours per month beginning in 2029.
That is the utility's case, and it is economically plausible. If a large customer pays the entire cost required to connect it to the grid and then purchases huge quantities of electricity under a binding long-term contract, existing customers can benefit, but there is another side. Critics warn that demand projections are still projections. If utilities construct billions of dollars in long-lived generating assets based on projected AI demand and some of those customers fail to materialize, scale down or leave early, the remaining system still has to pay for those assets. That is known as stranded-cost risk.
The AP reported that PSC staff and critics raised precisely that question during Georgia's generation debate. So when one politician says data centers will raise rates and another says they will lower rates, the most accurate answer is:
Either outcome depends on the contracts.
The important questions are:
Who paid for the substation?
Who paid for the transmission upgrades?
How much electricity did the company contract for?
How long is the agreement?
What is the minimum monthly payment?
How much collateral did the company provide?
And what happens if it walks away?
Those details—not slogans—determine who bears the risk.
The Legislature Has Already Recognized the Problem
Georgia lawmakers debated this directly in 2026. HB 1063 was designed to protect residential and ordinary commercial customers from costs associated with data-center construction and operation.
The House passed it 159 to 5.
The legislation contemplated stronger contractual requirements for very large electricity customers and was specifically aimed at preventing data-center costs from being shifted onto ordinary customers.
That 159-to-5 vote is politically revealing. Data-center cost protection is not simply a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. When legislation receives that level of House support, it suggests there is a broad recognition that Georgia wants investment—but also wants financial safeguards. The legislation did not ultimately become law during the session.
But the policy principle is likely to return:
Growth should pay for growth.
Georgia's own development law already embraces a version of that principle.
The Department of Community Affairs explains that local impact-fee law is intended to make new development pay its proportionate share of qualifying public facilities required to serve that growth. Data centers present that same principle at an extraordinary scale.
Water Is the Second Resource Question
Electricity gets most of the attention. Water may be the next major political flashpoint.
Different data centers have dramatically different water requirements depending on cooling technology.
That matters because saying that “a data center uses X gallons” without identifying the cooling technology, construction phase and operating configuration can be misleading. But the Fayetteville QTS experience demonstrates why transparency matters.
The QTS campus in Fayetteville includes 13 buildings totaling approximately 6.2 million square feet. During construction, a metering and billing controversy emerged involving tens of millions of gallons of water. The issue became especially politically damaging because it occurred while residents were worried about drought and water conservation. The dispute was ultimately treated as an administrative and metering problem rather than unauthorized theft of water, but the damage to public confidence was significant. The political response was dramatic.
As of March 5, 2026, new data centers are prohibited in every City of Fayetteville zoning district. That is an important lesson. Even if the engineering problem can later be explained, governments lose credibility when resource accounting is unclear. Georgia already has a regulatory framework for large water withdrawals. EPD permitting rules apply to major withdrawals, with the state using 100,000 gallons per day as an important permitting threshold for large withdrawals.
For very large data-center projects, policymakers should therefore be asking for numbers before approvals:
What is the maximum daily water demand?
How much is potable?
How much can be reclaimed?
What cooling technology will be used?
What happens during drought?
What is construction demand versus permanent operating demand?
And will actual consumption be publicly reported?
Those are reasonable questions for an industrial project consuming resources at this scale.
Location May Matter More Than Ideology
Georgia's local data-center disputes reveal something else:
Public opposition is often less about technology than about where the technology is being placed.
Athens-Clarke County provides a useful example. Local officials adopted new data-center text amendments on April 7, 2026 after debate over projects proposed in environmentally and agriculturally sensitive areas. Instead of treating every parcel the same, the government created clearer rules about where these facilities belong and how they should be reviewed. That is fundamentally a land-use question. And Georgia's existing planning system already recognizes that some major projects create impacts extending beyond the jurisdiction where the property sits.
The state's Development of Regional Impact process applies to large projects likely to create effects beyond their host community. DCA describes the system as an intergovernmental communications mechanism: neighboring governments can evaluate regional effects, while the host local government retains the final land-use decision. That principle could be particularly useful for hyperscale data centers. A county may approve the building. But the transmission line may cross another county.
The watershed may cross another county. Traffic may affect another jurisdiction. Generation may be built hundreds of miles away. The local zoning decision should remain local. But the impacts are not always local.
Columbia County May Be Showing a Possible Middle Ground
One of the most interesting Georgia developments came from Columbia County in July 2026.
The county announced a partnership with Google and Georgia Power built around restrictive operating covenants and ratepayer protections.
According to Columbia County, the agreement includes:
strict decibel limits,
lighting standards,
physical-footprint and visibility requirements,
water-supply protections,
an end-of-useful-life strategy, and
a commitment that Google will pay 100% of energy costs associated with the project, shielding other utility customers from additional infrastructure, transmission or capacity expenses attributable to it. citeturn930213search3
That model is worth watching. Because it does something different from both extremes. It does not ban the data center. It does not simply approve it and hope problems can be handled later. Instead, the project moves forward under enforceable conditions. That is much closer to what responsible development should look like.
What Georgia Should Learn From the Numbers
The statistics lead to several conclusions.
First, data centers create real economic value. Georgia's own evaluation found billions in economic activity, thousands of construction-related jobs and potentially tens of millions of dollars in recurring local property-tax revenue from individual large complexes.
Second, permanent employment is not the strongest argument for these projects. They are extraordinarily capital-intensive and comparatively labor-light once construction ends.
The economic case therefore rests much more heavily on capital investment, construction activity, supplier effects, utility revenue and property taxes than on thousands of permanent workers.
Third, automatic tax incentives are increasingly difficult to justify.
The state's updated evaluation estimated that 70% of Georgia data-center activity would have occurred without the dedicated exemption, while Georgia forgave $474.2 million in state revenue during FY2025.
Fourth, electricity risk is now more important than tax incentives. Georgia is adding nearly 10 gigawatts of capacity under the latest major PSC approval, and the construction bill alone is measured in the tens of billions of dollars.
Fifth, the industry itself is changing faster than government policy. The IEA says data-center electricity demand worldwide is on course to double by 2030, while electricity consumption from AI-focused facilities could roughly triple. So Georgia is not regulating a static industry.
The target is moving.
What Should Georgia Do?
Georgia should not apply a permanent statewide moratorium as Republican Candidate Rick Jackson points out, vs. Democrat Candidate for Governor Keisha Lance Bottoms more cautious stance. Jackson would like to empower localities to decide for themselves. However, Georgia does not need a blank check for developers as Republican Candidate for Lt. Governor Greg Dolezal raises. So what's the right path forward?
There is a more practical model, I call it a permit-to-operate compact.
If a company can demonstrate that its project is financially sound, appropriately located and capable of paying the costs it causes, government should give it a predictable path to approval.
In return, the project should accept clear obligations. Public engagement and proper surveying for best placement go hand-in-hand on this issue; if ignored it can be devastating to both parties and communities. Data Center companies should also invest/update into the local infrastructure to ensure mutual benefit to both parties, and notable cases like The Dalles, OR — 2021, Loudoun County, VA — 2023 and notably Goodyear, AZ — 2024; all notable real-world examples what the future of data center policy looks like,
First: Pay the costs you create.
Data-center-specific electric, water, road and emergency-service costs should not be shifted to homeowners or ordinary businesses.
Second: Put real money behind power commitments.
Very large customers should sign long-term contracts with minimum payments, collateral and termination provisions before utilities build billions of dollars of infrastructure around projected demand. Georgia Power is already using versions of these safeguards for customers above 100 megawatts.
Third: Require a complete project record before final approval.
For hyperscale developments, officials should know the expected:
megawatt demand,
water demand,
cooling system,
generator configuration,
noise levels,
traffic effects,
emergency-service requirements,
tax abatements,
infrastructure obligations,
decommissioning plan, and
expected permanent employment.
Fourth: Preserve local zoning authority.
The state should establish a minimum disclosure and ratepayer-protection floor.
But local communities should retain the ultimate land-use decision. Georgia's existing DRI system already preserves that principle of local final authority while encouraging regional coordination.
Fifth: Reward performance does not promise.
Future incentives—if Georgia ever chooses to recreate them—should be earned after investment and employment targets are actually met. Not simply awarded because somebody announced a large number at a press conference.
Finally: Fast-track good projects.
A responsible developer that has the land, financing, power contract, water strategy, local approval and financial guarantees should not face endless uncertainty. Good regulation should be demanding.
It should also be predictable.
The Bottom Line
Georgia should want to be part of the artificial-intelligence economy.
There is no serious economic strategy in 2026 that can simply pretend AI infrastructure does not matter. If we allow China to dominate the AI race and drive data centers out of the US, there could be serious implications on data security, U.S. National Security, and future prosperity.
The IEA estimates that data centers are already accounting for a rapidly growing share of electricity demand, with AI pushing individual facilities toward power requirements once associated with major industrial plants. Georgia has the power system, business climate, fiber infrastructure, land and economic-development apparatus to become one of America's major data-center markets.
That can be an advantage. But only if Georgia gets the economics right. A $10 billion investment announcement sounds impressive. So does a $20 billion announcement. But the number Georgians should care about is not simply the number on the press release.
They should ask:
How many permanent jobs?
How much property tax will actually be collected after abatements?
How much electricity will the project consume?
Who pays for the generation and transmission?
How much water does it need?
What happens if the project never reaches full buildout?
What does the community receive in return?
Those questions are not anti-growth.
They're the questions you ask when you want growth that lasts.
Georgia's experience suggests the right policy is neither:
“No data centers.”
Nor:
“Build anything, anywhere.”
The better principle is much simpler:
Good investment deserves a clear path.
Extraordinary demand requires extraordinary responsibility.
And growth should pay its own way.
That is how Georgia can participate in the AI revolution without asking households, small businesses and local communities to absorb risks they never agreed to take.
SOURCE(S):
Applied Digital Corporation. (2023, September 7). Applied Digital announces energizing of Ellendale, North Dakota facility. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1144879/000114487923000079/applieddigitalannouncesene.htm
Associated Press. (2026). Georgia Power expansion, data centers, and customer-cost risks. https://apnews.com/article/georgia-power-electricity-data-centers-psc-bills-0b377d6a4a57c9353c0eb577b8951af3
Athens-Clarke County Unified Government. (2026a, February 17). Data center text amendment presentation. https://www.accgov.com/DocumentCenter/View/114947/MC-Agenda-Setting-Data-Center-Text-Amendment-Presentation-02-17-2026
Athens-Clarke County Unified Government. (2026b). Temporary emergency moratorium on the establishment of new data centers. https://www.accgov.com/DocumentCenter/View/113020/27-Data-Center-Moratorium-Ordinance
City of Atlanta. (2021). Microsoft expansion and Atlanta economic-development record. https://www.atlantaga.gov/Home/Components/News/News/13655/1338
City of Fayetteville. (2026). Data center discussion. Retrieved August 11, 2026, from https://www.fayetteville-ga.gov/746/Data-Center-Discussion City of Forsyth. (2026, January 12). DRI 4585 final report: Proposed Forsyth Technology Campus. https://www.cityofforsyth.net/sites/default/files/uploads/news/dri-4585-press-release.pdf Columbia County. (2026, July 23). Columbia County, Google and Georgia Power partner to protect ratepayers and make growth work for residents. https://www.columbiacountyga.gov/m/newsflash/home/detail/111
Council on Environmental Quality. (n.d.). National Environmental Policy Act. https://ceq.doe.gov/ Coweta County. (2026). Zoning division. Retrieved August 11, 2026, from https://www.coweta.ga.us/306/Zoning-Division
Fayette County Government. (2026, May 13). QTS water bill clarification. https://www.fayetteville-ga.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4480/Fayette-County-QTS-Water-Bill-Clarification-2026-05-13 Federal Register. (2017a). Executive Order 13766: Expediting environmental reviews and approvals for high priority infrastructure projects. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/30/2017-02029/expediting-environmental-reviews-and-approvals-for-high-priority-infrastr ucture-projects Federal Register. (2017b). Executive Order 13807: Establishing discipline and accountability in the environmental review and permitting process. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/08/24/2017-18134/establishing-discipline-and-accountability-in-the-environmental-review-an d-permitting-process-for Georgia Attorney General. (n.d.). FAQ: Open government. https://law.georgia.gov/key-issues/open-government/faq-open-government
Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts. (2025). Tax incentive evaluation: High-technology data centers. https://www.audits.ga.gov/ReportSearch/download/33298
Georgia Department of Community Affairs. (n.d.-a). Governing statutes, regulations, and guidance. https://dca.georgia.gov/community-assistance/coordinated-planning/governing-statutes-regulations-and-guidance
Georgia Department of Community Affairs. (n.d.-b). Developments of regional impact. https://dca.georgia.gov/community-assistance/coordinated-planning/regional-planning/developments-regional-impact
Georgia Department of Community Affairs. (n.d.-c). Mandatory and permissive state codes. https://dca.georgia.gov/community-assistance/construction-codes/mandatory-and-permissive-state-codes
Georgia Environmental Protection Division. (2023). General NPDES permit GAR100002. https://epd.georgia.gov/document/document/2023-gar100002-stakeholder-permitpdf/download Georgia Environmental Protection Division. (2024). Permitting and compliance strategy. https://epd.georgia.gov/document/document/permitting-and-compliance-strategy-final-october-2024pdf/download
Georgia Environmental Protection Division. (n.d.). Air permitting program. https://epd.georgia.gov/air-protection-branch/air-branch-programs/permitting-program Georgia General Assembly. (2026a). HB 1063. https://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/72514 Georgia General Assembly. (2026b). HB 463 / Act 465. https://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/70350 Georgia Public Service Commission. (n.d.). About the PSC. https://psc.ga.gov/about-the-psc/
Keisha for Governor. (n.d.). Issues. Retrieved August 11, 2026, from https://www.keishaforgovernor.com/issues Microsoft. (2021, February 11).
Investing to grow in and with Atlanta. https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2021/02/11/investing-to-grow-in-and-with-atl anta/
Monroe County Board of Commissioners. (2025, August 5). Regular meeting minutes. https://www.monroecoga.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/08-05-2025-Regular-Meeting-minutes.pdf
North Dakota Industrial Commission. (2025). Future-proofing North Dakota's electrical system. https://www.ndic.nd.gov/sites/www/files/documents/Transmission-Authority/Publications/Transmission%20Capacity%20Study/2025-Final-Re port-Future-Proofing-NDs-Electrical.pdf
Ohio House of Representatives. (2026). Reps. Rader and Thomas introduce bipartisan bill to shield Ohio ratepayers from data-center-driven grid costs. https://www.house.ohio.gov/members/tristan-rader/news/reps-rader-thomas-introduce-bipartisan-bill-to-shield-ohio-ratepayers-from-dat a-center-driven-grid-costs-142119
Oregon Public Utility Commission. (2026). Commission adopts large-load customer rate structure. https://www.oregon.gov/puc/news-events/Documents/PR-202609.pdf
Rick Jackson for Governor. (n.d.). Letter from Rick. Retrieved August 11, 2026, from https://rickjackson.com/letter-from-rick/
State Corporation Commission of Virginia. (n.d.). SCC facts. https://www.scc.virginia.gov/about-the-scc/scc-facts/
Texas Legislature. (2025). Senate Bill 6, 89th Legislature. https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/SB00006F.htm
The Washington Post. (2026, April 23). Data center opposition is growing, impacting key midterm campaigns. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/04/23/data-center-opposition-is-growing-impacting-key-midterm-campaigns/
The White House. (2025, January 23). Executive Order 14179: Removing barriers to American leadership in artificial intelligence. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/removing-barriers-to-american-leadership-in-artificial-intelligence/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2026). Clean Air Act resources for data centers. https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/clean-air-act-resources-data-centers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (n.d.).
Endangered Species Act overview. https://www.fws.gov/law/endangered-species-act Virginia General Assembly. (2026). Virginia Code § 15.2-2209.5. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodeupdates/title15.2/section15.2-2209.5/ WTOC. (2026, March 13). Rick Jackson pitches outsider bid for Georgia governor, highlighting foster-care advocacy, tax cuts, and rural jobs. https://www.wtoc.com/2026/03/13/rick-jackson-pitches-outsider-bid-georgia-governor-highlighting-foster-care-advocacy-tax-cuts-rural-jobs/
Comments