The election changes the conversation
A billion-dollar data center can transform a county’s tax base. It can also leave residents wondering why a project that draws so much electricity produces comparatively few permanent jobs. After the November 3 election, those questions deserve a place on the public agenda.
Texans elected Gina Hinojosa governor and James Talarico to the U.S. Senate. Those were votes for elected office. Assessing support for a particular data center requires listening to the community where it would be built. Election source
What will residents gain, what might they pay, and what remains when the construction crews depart?
Three possible futures
Texas could sharply restrict development, accept most commercially viable proposals, or evaluate proposals selectively against local infrastructure and public-benefit criteria. A rejection can forgo investment and revenue. An approval can expose residents to infrastructure costs, water demands and changes in land use.
Each community needs a realistic alternative against which to compare the project. What else could that land support, and who would finance the roads, water infrastructure and power delivery in each case?
The economic scorecard
GO’s 2027–2036 model asks what 10, 100 or 250 hypothetical completed facilities would mean at the same investment and staffing levels. At $1 billion per facility, the 250-facility case reaches $250 billion in capital spending. This figure is an illustration, not a Texas investment forecast.
Capital spending, annual economic output, construction job-years and permanent positions measure different things. Estimating tax receipts or statewide output would require project-level incentives, depreciation schedules, supply-chain assumptions and infrastructure costs.
Explore the economics, 2027–2036
Adjust investment and ongoing positions per facility to compare three illustrative scenarios.
| Scenario | Facilities | Capital investment | Ongoing on-site positions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Minimal | 10 | $10B | 500 |
| Selective / balanced | 100 | $100B | 5,000 |
| Broad | 250 | $250B | 12,500 |
Each case assumes all facilities are operating by the end of 2036. Ongoing positions include on-site workers and contractors. Construction job-years and indirect employment are outside the model.
The Community Dividend™
For every project, publish the expected ten-year net public benefit. Start with taxes and fees, then subtract incentives, public services and infrastructure obligations. Set that figure alongside ongoing payroll, local hiring, housing and health effects, environmental performance, water commitments and reliability provisions.
The Community Dividend™ is GO’s proposed decision framework. A county can use it to make a promise measurable by identifying who will report each result, when it will be checked, and what happens if it falls short.
What the next administration inherits
The next administration inherits decisions on energy, water, housing and development. A change of office leaves individual projects subject to applicable statutes, permits and grid studies.
Texas’s large-load rule, published in October 2026, requires disclosures, financial security and agreements for qualifying ERCOT grid connections. It also assigns direct connection costs to the applicant. Residents can still ask who pays for broader upgrades and who carries the risk if a campus never opens. Texas Register source
Who pays for the power?
Does the developer have firm grid service, private generation or a staged hybrid plan? Who will pay for substations, lines, gas delivery, cooling water and backup systems? Who owns those assets if the campus never opens?
Read Report 04 / Who Powers the Future? for a closer look at those obligations.
What lasts
A large investment announcement opens a public conversation. Texas can welcome technological growth while asking communities and developers to put the terms in writing. Years after construction, residents should be able to measure what they received against what they were promised.