In our previous research published with the New Jersey State Policy Lab, we posed a question that is increasingly on the minds of ratepayers across the state: Are data centers raising your electric bill? Based on our quantitative analysis of residential electricity data (which is inclusive through 2024), the answer was a cautious “mostly not yet.” We found that while the grid is undoubtedly under pressure from these massive facilities, the severe cost spikes feared by many have not fully materialized on individual consumer bills just yet.
But “not yet” does not mean “never,” and the landscape of our energy grid is shifting rapidly. Crunching the numbers only tells half the story, and quantitative analysis cannot capture the lived experience of New Jersey residents. As the expansion of hyperscale data centers accelerates across our region, we realized that quantitative data alone is not enough to shape effective public policy. We need to understand how people are actually making sense of these changes in their everyday lives.
That is why my student Kaitlyn Rich and I are moving into a new qualitative phase of our research. Over the coming weeks, our team is launching an in-depth interview study to speak directly with residents. We are conducting 30-minute interviews with around fifty participants who have shared their historical utility bills with us. By sitting down with them and walking through their actual bills together, we want to explore their perceptions of energy costs and their understanding of the rapidly growing data center industry in the Garden State.
New Jersey already hosts roughly seven million square feet of data center space, and the broader region managed by our grid operator, PJM, is ground zero for an unprecedented infrastructure boom. Driven by the explosive growth of generative AI and cloud computing, data centers are projected to consume roughly 8 to 12 percent of U.S. electricity by 2030.
The public debate surrounding these facilities is deeply polarized, and we want to know how everyday ratepayers are navigating it. On one side of the conversation, there is profound public concern. A recent analysis of the 13 states covered by PJM suggests that the grid updates necessary to support data center expansion could drive residential electricity bills up by as much as 60 percent by the end of the decade—an estimated $9.3 billion in extra costs potentially passed down to everyday ratepayers.
These anxieties extend far beyond our wallets. Residents and environmental advocates are raising alarms about the immense resource consumption required to power the AI boom. There are valid fears that these massive energy demands are keeping coal plants online and forcing the construction of new gas-fired power plants, potentially undermining state climate goals. A single facility can consume millions of gallons of water just for cooling, raising concerns about local groundwater contamination and the release of pollutants. Furthermore, the communities hosting these centers often face significant quality-of-life disruptions. Neighbors report constant low-frequency noise pollution emitted by heavy-duty cooling systems and diesel generators, while local governments grapple with tech corporations that demand millions in tax subsidies for facilities that generate very few long-term, local jobs once construction wraps up.
Yet, there is a distinct counter-narrative, and our research aims to discover if residents are hearing or trusting it. The tech industry argues that data centers are the essential, invisible engines of modern society. They power the electronic health records at our local hospitals, secure our banking transactions, and keep our remote work and educational platforms running. From an economic perspective, proponents argue that data centers function as highly predictable anchor customers that strengthen the grid. They maintain that developers, rather than taxpayers, fund the bulk of the infrastructure required to connect these facilities, and that this steady demand helps utilities plan more efficiently for future generation projects. Moreover, advocates suggest that future advancements in artificial intelligence will ultimately optimize global computing, lowering our overall energy footprint.
Our upcoming interviews are designed to find out where people fall within this complex debate. When residents look at their utility bills, do they understand the breakdown between transmission, distribution, generation, and service charges? When they notice their costs fluctuating, who do they hold responsible? And crucially, how firmly held are their beliefs about data centers? We want to know if their opinions are set in stone or if they are open to change based on new, transparent information.
Ultimately, this is a question of public trust and policy communication. Research has consistently shown that stakeholders, whether they are local government officials, utility regulators, or tech executives, are trusted more when they operate with transparency, demonstrate empathy, and offer clear value to the community. But what does “transparent messaging” actually look like to a ratepayer? Do residents want their utility bills reformatted to clearly show the impact of data centers? What specific actions do they need from policymakers and industry leaders to feel confident that their community will not be saddled with a new environmental or financial burden?
By moving beyond the numbers and listening directly to the people paying the bills, our team hopes to provide local leaders with actionable insights. If states and cities are going to navigate the AI infrastructure boom effectively, they cannot just rely on venture capital projections or grid capacity models. They need a roadmap that aligns grid modernization with the actual values, concerns, and lived realities of the public. We look forward to sharing what we learn from these conversations in our next update.