Susan Pendergrass speaks with Judge Glock, director of research and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and contributing editor at City Journal, about the growing debate over data centers in Missouri and across the country. They discuss why some communities are banning data centers while others are welcoming them, how Loudoun County, Virginia became the global epicenter of data center development and what it has meant for local tax revenue, whether concerns about noise, aesthetics, and energy use are valid, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Episode Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00): Thank you for coming on the podcast again, Judge Glock. We’re going to talk about something that is certainly in the news and certainly good and bad for Missouri in the past week. We’ve had stories about both new data centers being announced and more communities banning them. What’s your take on that? You live in Virginia. In Missouri, we are certainly at odds with each other between one area that is going to have both a massive Amazon and a massive Google data center and then very close to that a large county that just banned them. Where do you think this is going?

Judge Glock (00:36): In some sense, it’s going the way of a lot of American projects in that there’s going to be a diversity of local responses to them, which I think is actually quite OK. One of the things I gather when I talk to some of my friends across the pond in the UK or in Europe is that they basically have to have this grand national debate about data centers, whether to allow them and where to allow them. That’s obviously an important and worthwhile debate, but in America what we’re going to have, and what we’ve already had, is a near infinitude of local debates about data centers. I think that’s the right path. When you nationalize or centralize these issues, you create more veto points for people who want to refuse any sort of growth. You also force certain kinds of growth on people in areas that aren’t necessarily favorable to them or most likely to benefit from them. The American system of fairly decentralized governance, combined with a fiscal horse-trading side where the main benefit of local data centers is the fiscal bump local communities can get, I think is going to lead to a more positive outcome than a more centralized system that tries to create a single answer for a whole country or state.

Susan Pendergrass (02:07): But we have at least one county in Missouri that within the last few days said, regardless of the money, we’re a community and these things ruin towns and communities. I wonder if it isn’t going to be like driving across some states like West Virginia where the biggest, ugliest, most pollution-spewing plants are there. I wonder if it’s because Virginia was willing to have them. Now you have these communities in Missouri that are like, we’ve got acres and acres of land and we don’t care what it looks like, versus these other communities that are saying we don’t want big white buildings everywhere. That to me is a very interesting dynamic, because I feel like they’re going to end up in places where nobody wants to build anything else.

Judge Glock (03:02): Yeah, and that might not be the worst outcome. Can I give a quick segue into the history of something called environmental racism? This was a movement started to some extent in the South in the 1970s and 1980s to meld general anti-industrial, pro-environmental sentiment with the burgeoning civil rights movement. The argument at that time was that evil polluters were forcing their factories into places that were poor and largely Black or minority-majority areas, and that this was a travesty because it was burdening people with increased environmental harm, pollution, and factory soot. The problem with that analysis, which has been carried out by the federal government for decades, is that a lot of times poor and minority communities really, really wanted these factories. They were willing to accept the trade-offs of the environmental harms for the fiscal and monetary benefits in a way that wealthier communities were not. Precisely because they were poor, they usually put a lower value on the environmental concerns that exercised a lot of high-income people and put a much higher value on getting good jobs and all the rest. There’s a famous case from the 1990s where I believe the Clinton administration sued a Louisiana parish and a company that was trying to place a factory in a majority-minority district, claiming it was an example of environmental racism. It actually turned out that the largely Black politicians in the local area were saying this was insane, that they were being sued by the federal government for being racist against themselves when they wanted the factory. That’s a long segue into environmental racism, but I think it’s the sort of analysis we should apply to data centers. There are going to be some areas that put a higher value on the fiscal benefits of data centers than others. On the whole, I imagine those will be poorer areas that care a bit more about reducing property taxes and perhaps the fairly small but not insignificant job benefits of data centers. Estimates suggest a finished data center will create around 50 or so permanent jobs, though certainly hundreds during construction. Some of those communities will be more likely to accept them than maybe wealthy suburbs or other areas that don’t want them for various reasons. Now there are exceptions to that general framework, and I’ve written a bit about Loudoun County, which is a very strange case study.

Susan Pendergrass (06:02): Tell me about that, because I’m surprised that it’s the data center capital of the world given what I’ve seen in Loudoun County.

Judge Glock (06:08): I happen to live in Fairfax, Virginia, in part of the suburbs, and grew up in the general area. So it surprised me to learn not too long ago that Loudoun County, just a little further west from Fairfax, a county generally considered ex-urban and rural, and by one measure, median income, the richest county in America, with a median household income of around $170,000 a year. And yet despite this reputation as a wealthy Northern Virginia ex-urban community, what Loudoun has actually become is the global epicenter of data centers. By some measure, the amount of gigawatts used by data centers, the only place close is Beijing, and they’re not even close, at about half the level of what Loudoun and Northern Virginia have. As I showed in an article I wrote for City Journal that got some attention, that came from a particular confluence of events, a history of Defense Department buildup that left a lot of what’s called dark fiber in the area, which created what’s known as low latency, meaning data centers there could communicate with each other very quickly. That made it a good place to locate internet and communication-focused data centers, and today data centers focused on inference for AI, that is the answering of AI queries. That history made it a particular location. But the other side of the Loudoun story is that for decades, and especially in the last decade, the county just recognized the fiscal benefits. Right now data centers are paying for 45% of all taxes in the county, which is pretty remarkable.

Susan Pendergrass (08:12): How much are they taking in from data centers in person?

Judge Glock (08:15): For the next fiscal year, the estimate is that data centers will bring in $1.3 billion in county revenue. That’s about 45% of all local tax revenue. But maybe an even more startling way to frame it is that all local government uses and projects outside of schools are a little less than what Loudoun raises from data centers alone. So the local residents of Loudoun County effectively get free police, free firefighters, free animal control, free roads, and so on.

Susan Pendergrass (09:00): Have they lowered their property taxes?

Judge Glock (09:02): Yes. Thanks to this absolute boom in data center revenue, Loudoun not only has very well-appointed and well-funded schools, roads, and police departments, but they’ve also lowered their property tax rate pretty continuously for over a decade. It’s about 40% lower than it was in the early 2010s. Now that’s offset to some extent by increases in assessments and other rates, but it is much lower than what I pay over here in Fairfax, about a third lower. So data centers for Loudoun, which can kind of be seen as the first area to really embrace them, and home to one of the first significant data centers in America built by a now large firm called Equinox in the late 1990s, has worked really, really well for that county. I don’t think it’s necessarily going to work as well for every possible county that doesn’t have the same advantages Loudoun does, but it does show that for those that embrace them, there can be real benefits. It clearly hasn’t hampered the ability to attract high-income, well-funded residents with good jobs and a nice community. On the whole it seems to have been beneficial, even if you’ve seen growing opposition there as you’ve seen elsewhere.

Susan Pendergrass (10:46): Virginia horse country. But now it feels like the word is out and people are hearing that there could be health risks, that the buildings buzz, that they use all the water. I’ve seen some recently that have like some blue stripes and stuff on them, but the originals were pretty plain. The latest vote in Missouri was in St. Charles, and people cheered and wrote all these emails saying we don’t want them in our backyard because of health risks and noise. How valid are those concerns?

Judge Glock (11:22): Before I was celebrating the local diversity of responses to data centers relative to the alternative, but I don’t want to slight the classic concerns with local NIMBYism, the not-in-my-backyard movement, or the idea that local governments often try very hard to restrict new development of housing or other projects in their area, which can be a substantial burden for people looking for housing or hoping for jobs and fiscal revenue. On the whole, I think the competitiveness of local governments will help wash that out. If St. Charles or another county refuses to build a data center, it’s often not too difficult to find another county willing to accept one. But I do think a lot of this anti-data center hysteria is driven by people with not just local concerns, which can be legitimate though to my mind often vastly overblown, but with a general anger at technological civilization and AI writ large. A lot of that has been strangely channeled into specific local opposition to data centers. That old leftist slogan of think globally and act locally presents a problem here: a lot of local issues don’t really map well to global concerns about climate change or AI. If someone has an issue with AI and they ban a local data center, that is in no way going to stop AI. Stopping a data center nearby is not going to stop the revolution. It will barely even slow it down. There is a lot of generalized opposition to modernity and technology that gets channeled into opposition to local data center construction, which is totally irrelevant to that debate. As for the actual local concerns, when I was reporting on the story for Loudoun, I spent some time driving around and checking out these data centers. For those who have not seen one, or frankly a park of them, it’s a pretty amazing sight. These things can be huge, nearly approaching a hundred feet tall, very solid concrete boxes, not often the most beautiful structures you’ve ever seen. The trend now is placing blind windows in them randomly to make them look better, though depending on your preference that may or may not help. I think a lot could be done to address the aesthetic concerns. Those are real. If you look at some parts of Loudoun and elsewhere, there are data centers built right next to housing subdivisions, and it can feel uncomfortable to have a looming concrete block right next door. The other local concern I think is somewhat legitimate but again overblown is the noise. Data centers, mainly because of their cooling systems, emit a fairly regular hum. It’s a low frequency, low decibel hum, but at a low frequency it can go through walls and subtly shake things. It can be irritating. I personally would not like a low frequency hum right next door. But the solution, as with the visual impact, is simply to push them back a bit. This is not like a local school that needs to be right next to a subdivision. If you’re talking a few hundred yards down the road, you’ve pretty much solved most of the hum and visual impact issues, especially if you surround it with some trees or berms or other methods to both hide the structure and limit the noise. Those two issues, the noise and the visual impact, are real. I understand why people are concerned, but they can be and have been easily addressed. In most of the debates you see, that’s not really the issue. It’s these generalized concerns about AI or false concerns about water.

Susan Pendergrass (16:03): What about the use of energy?

Judge Glock (16:19): Again, to some extent this is another local versus global problem where the local energy use of a data center is not really going to change the price people pay on their local residential energy bill. Most energy here in Virginia and elsewhere is part of a big interconnection, which is a market where different energy producers and power plants share electricity across large transmission lines. The price for electricity, besides state-level mandates, laws, or environmental regulations, is usually determined in that general market. Yes, a data center will drive up electricity costs somewhat in that general market, but it’s not necessarily a substantial driver of that. One new data center will have a very minimal impact on anybody’s bills across the whole region and will have no real effective impact on somebody’s local energy bills. To some extent, data center builders have also been doing a lot more work to construct what’s called off-the-grid or behind-the-grid energy production attached to the data centers. That can be problematic because of increased noise, even in Loudoun and elsewhere where a lot of places just have backup diesel generators that can produce a loud crack when the backup energy turns on, since data centers want to be running constantly. But in general, as before, you have very localized concerns about noise that you want to address with very localized attempts to limit those impacts, either through distancing the data center or finding ways to cover it and limit the noise it emits. The electricity issue is real in the sense that demand for electricity is going up because of data centers, and as economists like to say, supply is inelastic, meaning supply of energy is not going to ramp up as quickly as demand. That means prices are going to go up a little bit nationally because of that. But as long as the value of these data centers is there and people are going to build them, they’re not really going to have a meaningful impact on local electricity prices, and the data center builders are going to find other ways to get electricity and make sure that generation capacity comes online.

Susan Pendergrass (19:28): Missouri is building these two massive data centers not far from our one nuclear plant, and I know that’s something that has been discussed. When I hear that Loudoun County was the first to do this in such a massive way that they could bring in half of their income from data centers, it feels to me like when Colorado legalized cannabis and was the only state to do so. They took in so much money that residents got money back on their income taxes, and every other state said they were going to be just like Colorado. But Colorado was the one that did it first. Maybe Loudoun is the one that did it first with data centers. So now when a community brings in a data center, it’s not going to have the same impact it had in that first wild test case that was Loudoun County, right?

Judge Glock (20:18): I think that’s correct. I would note though that for some smaller communities, especially small rural communities with relatively small populations, such as some of these Texas counties, a single data center can become a third or more of the city’s or county’s budget overnight. So they can have a huge impact on smaller and poorer areas. But do most data centers as they’re built today have the huge fiscal impact that Loudoun got? Absolutely not. The other side of the fiscal story, though, and one that will apply more universally, is that data centers require very little in the way of services. When a city allows a new subdivision or apartment building, it gets more property taxes but also has to pay for schooling for the kids, roads, fire departments, and all the rest. When a city allows a new office park, there are similar property tax benefits but fewer service costs than residential development. According to one estimate I saw, for every dollar a typical office building or commercial retail project generates, a city spends about 25 cents on actual services to it. For data centers, because there’s basically no one in them, that number drops to about four or five cents. They basically need nothing. As I talked to some of the local officials in Loudoun, they said these things don’t send kids to school, they don’t even put cars on the road. There’s basically no impact on anything else. Once it’s built, it just sits there and throws off property tax revenues. No trash pickup, no breaking up fights at a local bar. It’s just money that keeps flowing in. So even if the property taxes aren’t as massive as they are in Loudoun, local communities still aren’t going to have to worry much about services, and they’re still likely going to see a big net benefit. Some people point out that data centers don’t offer many jobs over the long run, and a lot of industrial projects get approved because of job creation. But the flip side is that very few jobs also means low services and low impact. A big concern with local communities approving projects is traffic, and data centers just don’t create much of it for their size. So yes, other counties are not going to get the kind of deal Loudoun got and still is getting, because it remains the epicenter and data center builders want to build next to other data centers. But they are going to get a project that really doesn’t cost much of anything, still throws off at least some money, and doesn’t really burden local communities as long as it’s placed ever so slightly out of the way.

Susan Pendergrass (24:16): That brings me to another point. I’ve read that there are a lot of very smart engineers working on the problem of AI inference and how much energy and space it requires, and how to make it more productive. Eventually I think they’re going to solve this. We used to have server rooms that every business kept cool, and then everyone ended up with a laptop or even a phone. Eventually I think people are going to address this problem of requiring so much physical space to do what we need to do. I wonder if in a decade we’re just going to have empty white blocks sitting around because it’ll be too expensive to demo. What do you think?

Judge Glock (25:08): It could happen. You mean the data centers will be depopulated of their servers because they’ll be so miniaturized. That’s true, and it could be. To some extent, counties like Loudoun that have benefited massively from these data centers can and have set up rainy day funds, similar to counties that get a sudden oil influx, to say that if this ever starts to peter out, they’ll still have a long-term benefit they can continue placing into their budget and at the service of their residents. Right now I think we’re so far away from a potential data center bust that it really shouldn’t be a concern. As I’ve also pointed out, right now about one and a half percent of our whole economy is spent building data centers. This is just from basically zero just a few years back. This is a wild building boom, absolutely wild. We’re talking hundreds of billions of dollars a year. We need, if anything, to make sure that people can build out those data centers to do the other things that the AI revolution is going to require and demand, no matter what local opposition one county or another expresses. When you talk to people in the industry, the consensus is that we just can’t even build them fast enough. If very smart companies and very smart people are willing to invest hundreds of billions of dollars a year in data centers, and when I say data centers I mean mainly the servers and computers in them, I think they know it’s going to be a good return.

Susan Pendergrass (27:09): Well, it’s going to be interesting to see it play out in Missouri, because there’s definitely been backlash coming through the local town councils and the voters have been pretty loud in some areas. Have any Virginia counties banned them that you know of?

Judge Glock (27:29): Virginia has not only been the epicenter of the growth of data centers, it has been the epicenter of the opposition to data center movement as well. There is a group, something like Data Center Reform Watch, that has been monitoring local opposition. You’ve seen a bunch of counties take pretty strong steps against new data center construction. I forget if they’ve gone all the way to a formal and complete ban, but you definitely have votes in major counties either to block individual sites or to ban them from large swaths of the county. My take is that some other county is going to want and find ways to get those data centers, and when some of these counties realize they may have gone a little too far, they’re going to look at ways to pare it back and focus more on where to place the data centers rather than banning them outright and everywhere. I really struggle to find the logic in a local community banning a data center that’s going to be two and a half miles from anybody else. Frankly, as weird and big as they are, are they that different from, say, a local warehouse? A warehouse has trucks coming in and out all day, spewing pollution. One of these fulfillment centers is a big concrete box just like a data center, but with all that traffic on top of it. Data centers just seem much less problematic in that regard. In some sense they’re like a warehouse without all the trucks. If not for this huge generalized concern with AI, which is a separate debate, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of logic to just banning them completely.

Susan Pendergrass (29:42): Well, it is early days. I would love to have you come back again to talk to us when the dust settles a little bit, especially in Missouri. One of the first places I remember reading about a ban was Festus, Missouri, and now there are more. I’m also hearing about some of the biggest data centers going in there. So we’d love to have you back.

Judge Glock (30:02): That’d be great. I look forward to it.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Are Data Centers Good for Communities? with Judge Glock appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Jacob Light, Hoover Fellow at the Hoover Institution, about his research on how artificial intelligence is reshaping higher education. They explore which college majors are most exposed to AI capabilities, why professors are largely not changing their syllabi or assessment methods despite widespread awareness of AI, and what students are doing in response to the uncertainty. They also discuss whether the backlash against AI on college campuses is real, what previous waves of technological change can teach us about the current moment, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Episode Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00): Thank you so much for joining us today on the podcast. Jacob Light, Hoover Fellow at the Hoover Institution, talking about something that’s very timely right now in this college graduation season. I’m hearing that all the college students are having a backlash against AI. I don’t know if you would agree with that or not, but I want you to try to explain to people listening what first of all you’ve been looking at in terms of AI in college in general, and also what your findings have been, because I find them to be very interesting and somewhat surprising.

Jacob Light (00:31): Thank you so much for having me. I’m really excited to join the podcast today. I’m an economist who studies how universities respond to different forces of change, whether that be changes in the labor market, changing political conditions, and more recently, changing technology, which feels very central both as a former student and now as an instructor at a university, thinking about how AI is affecting the way that students interact with their courses. My work right now thinks about this problem of AI in higher education in two ways. First, where should we be looking for exposure of higher education to AI? Where do the skills that students are learning to develop in their courses overlap with the capabilities of artificial intelligence? The second strain of the research is how are universities adapting? How are instructors changing the way that they administer courses? How are students changing which courses they take? And how should we look at these movements as indications of how these two sides of this market are responding to this big shock?

Susan Pendergrass (01:39): So to be clear, you’re not just saying that ChatGPT becomes available and all the professors outlaw the use of AI in classes, but more so: are students continuing in 2026 to be taught skills that we know AI can do? And what’s the answer?

Jacob Light (01:57): Yeah, exactly. I think it’s important to contextualize that we teach students many skills that have already been automated. We teach students basic arithmetic and spelling, even though we have calculators and spell check. We have these tools that can perform a lot of the cognitive work that we teach students to do from a very young age, and yet we still think it’s important for students to develop skills in these areas. We still teach students to add and subtract both because those skills unlock higher order cognitive skills and also just because that exercise is useful to students. So what I do in my research is think not just about whether instructors are changing the courses they offer to reduce the weight on things that ChatGPT and large language models are able to do, but if we think it’s important for students to develop these skills even though AI can do them, things like analyzing data or writing essays, then it becomes important for instructors to modify the way they offer courses so that we still get information about how well students are learning to do the tasks that AI can potentially substitute for them.

Susan Pendergrass (03:13): I don’t want to minimize the effort you put into this, because it’s massive. You went through thousands of syllabi to really look at what’s being taught in a very specific way. You also included not just large language model AI but robots, and a lot of the skilled trades. I would imagine that the skills needed 10 years ago have changed now that robots can do a lot of that work. What are you seeing there?

Jacob Light (03:42): For this first part of the project, where I think about how different fields of study are exposed to artificial intelligence, I should say upfront that exposure here doesn’t necessarily mean that every computer scientist is going to have their job completely automated. What I’m thinking about is the degree to which students are able to use AI as a substitute for, or maybe even a complement to, their work in the classroom. The approach I take is to leverage a dataset that I’ve spent many years collecting of course offerings from a large number of US colleges and universities. For about 1,000 schools, I’ve scraped the course catalogs and course schedules, which gives me insight into every course offered at the school over a period of up to 30 years. I see course offerings, enrollment, titles, instructors, and course descriptions. I use these course descriptions to build a sense of what skills and tasks a student develops in, say, an economics class. The exposure measure is the degree to which what a student does in that class overlaps with the capabilities of artificial intelligence. To be very specific with an example: in an economics class, students are often trained to analyze data, use models, and evaluate policy. The intuition for the approach I use is that if we see AI is really good at analyzing data, using models, and evaluating policy, we would think of economics as a field of study that is highly exposed to AI. I think about exposure to AI in two different ways. For the broad capabilities of AI, I glean from patents related to artificial intelligence. I look at the overlap between the tasks that students do in their courses and tasks that AI technology patents say those technologies are capable of doing. And then very specifically at the capabilities of large language models, which I think of as a subset of AI.

Susan Pendergrass (05:21): Yeah.

Jacob Light (05:35): So I look at two measures of what AI can do: the broad range of AI capabilities, which I extract from patents, and then the specific capabilities of large language models. What I find is that when you compare the exposure of college courses to AI versus to previous types of technologies, such as robotics, we see that courses are much more exposed to the things that AI can do than to the capabilities of previous technologies. This is consistent with existing research that suggests highly skilled jobs, the types of jobs that college graduates flow into, are more exposed to artificial intelligence than they were to previous waves of technology. That’s the first order finding. But within college majors, there’s pretty wide variation in exposure, and it differs based on whether we think of exposure to the broad class of AI technologies versus just large language models.

Susan Pendergrass (06:55): What’s the most exposed? It looks like it’s computer science, right?

Jacob Light (07:00): Statistics and data science and computer science are highly exposed majors. Unfortunately, economics is also a highly exposed major. I should say it’s not necessarily a good thing or a bad thing to be exposed. On one hand, there’s a risk that students are not developing the same skills when they have access to these AI tools as they did in a pre-ChatGPT period. But also, we lower the barriers to entry into computer science and economics through the availability of these tools, because everyone’s vibe coding, and also you have bespoke tutors in your pocket that can help you navigate difficult courses and overcome barriers to entry. So it’s not obviously a bad thing.

Susan Pendergrass (07:35): Because everyone’s vibe coding.

Jacob Light (07:53): But to be specific, especially when we think about exposure to AI as represented by the capabilities of large language models, what seems to drive exposure is a combination of fields of study that involve data analysis and generating text. These are the two things we think of LLMs as being very good at. So the quantitative social sciences, economics, political science, even sociology, as well as fields that involve applied data analysis, including statistics and computer science, are going to be the fields where the skills that students develop overlap most with what AI is capable of doing.

Susan Pendergrass (08:31): So are professors changing their syllabi to reflect that? Are they dropping things that clearly could just be covered by AI?

Jacob Light (08:40): That gets to the second part of this project. Having documented that there is this concern that AI overlaps with what we teach students to do in their courses, and that students might be able to substitute AI for their own work, we might look specifically at these highly exposed fields as places where we want instructors to modify the way they teach as a means of ensuring that students are developing the skills they were developing before ChatGPT was released. We read a lot of these articles about blue books being back.

Susan Pendergrass (09:12): Using blue books? I feel nostalgic for the blue books. There’s something almost romantic about writing in a blue book versus clicking buttons on a Canvas quiz.

Jacob Light (09:12): Yeah, I don’t like blue books by the way, but using blue books, yes.

Susan Pendergrass (09:23): But isn’t that just working against an enormous tide? To think that requiring students to write in a blue book is going to force them to not use AI for the exam, but aren’t they using it daily in their coursework?

Jacob Light (09:53): Again, it’s not obvious to me that using AI in their coursework is a bad thing. So much of the work I did when I was a college student was pretty inefficient. I spent a lot of time writing code that didn’t work and writing essays that read very poorly. To automate some of those experiences might allow students to invest more in the types of higher order thinking and learning that are more valuable. But on the other hand, I think I became a better coder because I made mistakes through the process. Now I can distinguish good code from bad code because I’ve written a lot of bad code and I know what my bad code looks like. So we might think that even if we’re not changing the types of skills that students develop in their courses, that we continue to offer economics courses and computer science courses, the way that we assess whether students are learning the skills they need is going to change. There are certain types of assessments, like out-of-class essays and homework, where you just can’t get as much information about how much students are learning, versus in-class proctored exams, participation, and presentations where students have to demonstrate mastery through assessments where you can’t use AI tools. What I do is, for about 20 universities, I’ve collected a panel of syllabi covering both the pre and post-ChatGPT period, and I extract two pieces of information. The first is whether the syllabus has an AI policy or not. The second is the weights that instructors put on different types of assessments, such as half the grade being based on exams and 25% based on essays. I find two interesting things. The first is that following the release of ChatGPT, instructors became very aware of AI. We see a massive increase in the share of courses that have any AI policy, and most of those policies are restrictive of the use of AI. My own syllabus has clear instructions about when I want students to use AI and when I don’t. My students are very compliant and of course listen to everything I say, both when I’m lecturing and in the syllabus. So we see that instructors are aware of AI and think of it as a concern in the classroom.

Susan Pendergrass (09:12): You think they follow that?

Jacob Light (12:24): Sure, great, okay. But the second thing I extract is assessment weights, which allow me to assess whether instructors are changing the way they offer courses in a way that lets them extract more information about how much students are learning. What I find is that despite instructors being very aware of AI, we see virtually no changes in how much weight instructors are putting on the types of assessments where students can substitute AI for their own work, versus assessments like exams and participation where they can’t. We hear a lot about blue books being back. We hear anecdotal stories about how instructors are concerned about students using AI in the classroom. But I just don’t see this in the data.

Susan Pendergrass (13:23): That’s surprising to me.

Jacob Light (13:42): I think what’s interesting and informative is that there are two shocks in pretty quick succession over the last couple of years that push in opposite directions on the information that instructors can get from different types of assessments. During the pandemic, it became harder to offer in-person exams. There was a physical constraint that limited exams. What I see is a shift away from exams and towards homework, a gradual pre-pandemic shift away from exams that sharply accelerated during the pandemic, and that persists even in the years after in-person instruction resumes. We can use that as a benchmark: at minimum, instructors could revert back to the way they were weighting courses before the pandemic. What we see is basically nothing. There are very modest shifts away from homework and other AI-substitutable assessments, primarily essays. We’re slightly reducing the weight on essays and offsetting that with increases in participation and presentations. But we’re seeing very little movement at scale away from the types of assessments where students can substitute AI for their own work.

Susan Pendergrass (14:44): Maybe higher education just moves slowly. It’s an ivory tower. People get entrenched. Some professors use the same syllabus for 20 years. Maybe it just moves more slowly in reaction to this. I know some that are angry about the AI thing, but it’s up to them to figure out how to change it. In terms of what students are doing, how are they reacting to the changes in terms of what they’re choosing as majors? What are you seeing there?

Jacob Light (15:32): Yes, so I track changes in enrollment over the last 20 years using this course schedule data from a large number of universities. Similar to the relatively slow movement on the instructor side, students are moving pretty slowly as well. Despite stories about concerns about the viability of computer science as a major, and after a period of very rapid growth in CS enrollment, we’re only seeing a slight dip in CS enrollment and in other AI-exposed fields of study in the last couple of years. What I can show is that for the first time since around 2005, when CS enrollment began to take off, this current year, the 2025-26 year, we see a slight decrease in computer science enrollment. But it still remains elevated compared to the start of the pandemic and substantially elevated compared to 2010. In a way, perhaps this makes sense, because although there is greater uncertainty around the returns to developing CS skills, CS courses are now easier to take because you have tools that can help you with your homework and tutor you. One of the barriers to entry into CS courses previously was that they were hard, and these tools make more AI-exposed courses easier. I think the risk and the concern is that the same tools that can do your work in the classroom can also potentially do your job, and I don’t think we see students internalizing that risk yet.

Susan Pendergrass (17:12): Even though the Wall Street Journal has a layoff tracker and Meta is constantly seemingly laying folks off, and Amazon as well. We see a lot of thinning of the herd when it comes to software engineers. I just imagine it’s going to change. Is this generation of college students in a weird bind? They’re right between the pre-AI and post-AI worlds, spending a lot of money on college tuition at a time when the future of different types of work is very uncertain.

Jacob Light (17:54): I’m very sympathetic to college students who are navigating uncertainty right now of a form that I don’t think college students have had to navigate previously. During previous technological change, we’ve always looked to universities as the resource that we send people to upskill, with the promise that the skills you develop in college are going to have returns when you enter the labor market. I continue to believe that’s the case, certainly in the short term. But I recognize that the nature of work is changing quite rapidly as new technology can perform some of the tasks that workers are able to do. Economists often conceptualize occupations as a bundle of tasks, and when a new technology comes online, the technology is able to do some of those tasks while the human worker continues to perform others. The net impact on an occupation really depends on which tasks are being automated, and whether that means we need fewer people doing that occupation because the technology can do it for us, or whether the ability of technology to make workers more efficient actually increases the demand for people with those skills because now more firms will benefit from having a single software engineer on staff when it previously would not have been rational for them to have any. There’s a lot of uncertainty right now, and I think it’s difficult to navigate as a 19 or 20 year old.

Susan Pendergrass (19:37): What about this backlash? Eric Schmidt spoke at a college graduation and folks booed him, I think. Even Jonathan Haidt, who is sort of anti-smartphone and screen time. Do you perceive that? You work on a college campus. Do you see that age group wanting to turn away from AI?

Jacob Light (20:02): My perception is that the backlash is to the uncertainty that AI introduces. Many students are eager to use the technology when it makes them more efficient or when it allows them to substitute time they would spend solving problem sets towards leisure and other pursuits. But I’m sympathetic to the frustration that students are feeling, that this investment they’ve made and the promise of opportunity that college has previously offered is now at risk because of the changing technological landscape.

Susan Pendergrass (20:53): I was talking to a lawyer recently about AI and how they use it and how great it is for them. They said basically every lawyer now has their own legal assistant. And I was like, what does that do for legal assistants? Everyone’s got a research assistant, which is great. I use it all the time. But what does that do for people who used to start as a research assistant? It’s obviously changing things. I kind of remember, because I’m pretty old, desktop computers being the thing that was going to kill all these jobs, and it just shifted the market. It didn’t kill anything. It just dramatically increased productivity. I think people have a lot of dystopian views of this, but you sound like you’re a little more on the utopian side, and I think there could be a lot of positives that come out of it.

Jacob Light (21:38): I think that’s right. Economists are not in the business of making predictions generally, and I’d have to give up my PhD if I did. I take some comfort looking at previous waves of technological change, exactly as you said. Computers created more job opportunities than they reduced. Mechanized agriculture unlocked widespread growth in the economy despite reducing some employment in agriculture. My belief, if we take the past as precedent, is that we will see something like that with artificial intelligence as well. Some, perhaps many, occupations will be disrupted. Workers in those occupations will experience difficult consequences of this change. But there will be more and new opportunities available once this technology is more widely deployed. There’s a trade-off, and the transition is messy and painful. But I think on net, the precedent is that new technology is generally helpful for society.

Susan Pendergrass (22:57): AI spits out a lot of bad content and you still need a human, I think, to determine what’s bad and what’s good. I think that’s the skill set within the CS world. You can have AI code five versions of something, but somebody needs to know which one is good. So what do you think about that?

Jacob Light (23:22): I think that’s exactly right. The expertise becomes more valuable. In a way, it’s kind of a bummer that the parts of work where humans maintain their advantage are in evaluating quality rather than in generating. We’ve kind of taken the creative component of work away. I think it creates a less satisfying, perhaps less intellectually stimulating workflow. At this stage, certainly, we continue to need humans with expertise beyond the capabilities of AI to evaluate what AI is producing. I think that points to the crisis that higher education faces: if we are not able to produce these experts because students are not developing the skills we need them to develop in college, then how will we produce the next cohort of experts? Similarly to your point, if we don’t have legal assistants and research assistants who will eventually become lawyers and researchers, then we are not training people to preserve their comparative advantages over these new tools. I think that’s a big risk we face, and it emphasizes the importance of education right now more than ever.

Susan Pendergrass (24:56): So are you going to continue with this, scraping the data and looking at it?

Jacob Light (24:58): Yeah. It’s my maniacal hobby. I started this data collection in February 2020, and a month later the world changed. But I had a lot of free time on my hands, so it gave me something to do. This little hobby of mine became my pandemic hobby. It was my sourdough. This data gives really rich insight into how universities differ in ways that I don’t think researchers have been able to explore previously.

Susan Pendergrass (25:36): No, I think it’s great. That’s really cool. If people want to find out more, where can we find it?

Jacob Light (25:42): I’m a researcher at the Hoover Institution. You can go to my website at jacob-light.com. I’m always eager to talk about this work.

Susan Pendergrass (25:51): That’s fascinating stuff. Well, thanks so much. I’d love to see a follow-up in a year or two. I think it’s really interesting. Thank you so much.

Jacob Light (25:57): Absolutely. Thank you so much for having me.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post AI and the Future of College with Jacob Light appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Todd Davidson, Vice President of Programs at the State Policy Network, about how artificial intelligence is reshaping the think tank world. They explore what AI is good at and where it falls short, how organizations like the Show-Me Institute can use it to become more productive without losing their edge, why face-to-face relationships will only become more valuable as AI-generated content floods the internet, how a Hawaii think tank used an AI agent to help fire victims submit legislative testimony, what good policy looks like in an AI-driven energy landscape, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Episode Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00) Great, well, thanks so much for joining us this morning. Todd Davidson of the State Policy Network, to talk about the topic du jour: artificial intelligence. Thanks so much for coming on to talk about it. I’m afraid to even say anything out loud about AI because by next week it’ll be…

Todd Davidson (00:11) Yeah, happy to be here. Thanks for having me.

Susan Pendergrass (00:18) Nothing really ages — it changes so fast. But I did just read that Mark Zuckerberg has an AI agent who is performing his CEO duties for him. Did you see that? Why not, right?

Todd Davidson (00:28) I saw that, yeah. And then he can just kick back, go down to his Hawaii bunker and just let Facebook run itself.

Susan Pendergrass (00:37) Yeah, I mean, I still haven’t really dabbled in agentic AI, but I know it’s right there and I’m going to want to do it soon. We’re going to talk about AI in the think tank world, but I have to check legislation and hearings and see how those things are going every day. I can well imagine an AI agent doing that for me.

Todd Davidson (01:01) Yeah, if it’s properly trained. So ShowMe Institute, to give the audience broader context, is a member of State Policy Network, and we have sister organizations like ShowMe in states across the country. The Libertas Institute, which is based out of Utah, did exactly what you’re talking about. Connor Boyack, the CEO, built a legislative tracking system that then feeds into their scorecard where they keep track of legislation. He said it took him about eight hours of work to code the agentic AI, but now it does the work automatically. Of course it needs fine-tuning and always has a final human observer that verifies everything, but it’s being used for those purposes right now across the country.

Susan Pendergrass (01:59) So we’re in the think tank world, and it’s probably more of an art than a science at the state level. Tracking the policies — first of all, thinking about the policies that we think would be best for Missouri, then doing a bunch of research on those policies, then creating content on those policies, then trying to talk to legislators and hope that they see our point of view, and that they enact actual laws that reflect those policies. That’s a really labor-intensive job. Which parts of that could you see being picked up by AI?

Todd Davidson (02:33) I’m by no means an expert on AI, but I work with someone who is. What has been explained to me is that AI is very good at synthesizing information. It’s very good at predicting — it essentially predicts the next word. It takes all these inputs and predicts the next set of words, which comes out to us as sentences. So if you are able to give it certain inputs — say, I want you to look at these bills, I want you to look at these things — and give it a sort of walled garden, it can then be prompted to produce any type of analysis that you want. The reason you want that walled garden is because AI can still hallucinate. It can make stuff up. Actually, this just went viral last week: a lawyer down in Georgia went before the Georgia Supreme Court and had AI produce her entire argument. It cited five fictitious cases, and the judges called that out. So you have to give it constraints and say, here are the data inputs, now summarize this for me. And it can get you a pretty solid first draft of that summary. Of course, you’re still going to need a human to go through and edit it and add voice and texture to it. But summarizing that data, saying tell me which of these align with our principles or does not align with our principles — it would be very good at that kind of thing. What it’s not going to be able to do is the creative part. When you think about what is the policy that we want to design for Missouri, what does Missouri need — it’s not at the stage where it could do that. That’s where you would still want Show-Me Institute experts to be crafting those kinds of things. But if something’s already out there and existing, you can summarize it and score it based on criteria pretty easily.

Susan Pendergrass (04:35) So given how quickly firms are moving towards AI — and in fact mandating AI because it’s such a time saver and productivity increase — how does a think tank position itself in that world? There’s so much talk about AI just replacing all of our jobs. Maybe it does replace my job — I don’t know. I’ve heard podcasts generated by AI in my voice, so it could be doing this job right now. I would like to think it wouldn’t be as great, but how does a think tank position itself? What’s our value add in that scenario?

Todd Davidson (05:12) Start by going back to what your mission and objective is. ShowMe Institute — and by the way, I am a resident of Missouri and a big fan of the Show-Me Institute, both from my SPN perspective and from my Missouri resident perspective — we have principles: free markets, a robust civil society, a thriving economy. We want the feds to get out of the way in a lot of cases. We want the government to get out of the way. And then how we execute that mission is through policy change, mostly at the state level, though I know you also work at the local level. So state and local policy change is the objective. How do we go about that? We produce research and then we advocate — in some cases talking directly to policymakers, communicating out to the public through op-eds and things so that the public then talks to lawmakers. And ultimately we get policies passed that lower the income tax, reduce barriers to work, and provide more options for kids in schools. So what AI is going to do is make research and content much easier to produce. By research, again, I mean that summarization kind of research — it’s going to make that kind of stuff extremely easy for folks to produce. Everybody’s going to have a research assistant. What AI cannot do is personal relationships. It will never be able to do that. What it also cannot do is tour the entire state of Missouri, know all of the history and relationships and connections of people throughout the state. So I believe Show-Me Institute and all of the affiliates across the country that are state and local based are going to have an advantage because you’re in your community. You know people, you know policymakers, you know community leaders, you know people that are affected by your policies. And that’s something AI is not going to be able to do. AI can look at the statistics and arguments and academic literature, and it could put together a brief, and that could be useful. It would make your job more efficient — you’d be able to produce those things in a fraction of the time you do right now. But then with that extra time, I would use it to go out and build stronger relationships in the communities, and then use those relationships towards policy change.

Susan Pendergrass (07:51) What about grassroots? More grassroots-type stuff?

Todd Davidson (07:55) Grassroots very much. AI is going to have an interesting relationship with grassroots. In one way, it actually makes it easier for grassroots individuals to engage their legislature. On the other hand, it’s going to create a flood of grassroots engagement digitally. So face-to-face grassroots engagement is going to have more impact. I’ll tell you a story: Hawaii had the terrible fire that destroyed Lahaina a few years back. Hawaii has terrible building codes — it’s incredibly hard to build homes there. That town was completely destroyed, so the state needed to relax its building codes in order for homes to be rebuilt. Well, they weren’t making this change. Show-Me’s sister think tank, called the Grassroots Institute of Hawaii, built an AI platform that allowed individuals to submit testimony to the legislature. Testimony has a higher bar, right? You can email your lawmakers pretty easily, but testimony goes into the legislative record and has to follow a certain format and be structured in a certain way. That’s not something that grassroots individuals were very equipped to provide. So a think tank would typically provide the testimony and then get grassroots supporters to send emails to lawmakers. What Grassroots Institute of Hawaii did was build an AI agent so that an individual could say, “Hey, my house was burnt down, I need these things,” and the AI agent would turn that into testimony and submit it directly to the legislature. It resulted in a skyrocketing number of testimonies being filed. Because of that, the legislature said, “Wow, we’ve heard from 500 constituents — we’ve never heard from that many constituents before.” So they relaxed their regulatory regime, and now homes are being built in Lahaina much faster.

Susan Pendergrass (09:48) Did they know that AI was doing it? Were legislators thinking, okay, this is AI?

Todd Davidson (10:12) That is why they went through testimony. Legislators’ email inboxes — they’re not reading their emails anymore, right? They get thousands of them. But through testimony, the AI was not making up the stories. The people had to fill out the content and explain their story. The AI was just structuring it in a way to make sure that it got submitted as testimony. I do think that is a bit of an arms race. At some point the same thing that has happened with email will happen — there will just be thousands of pieces of testimony and you won’t be able to read all of them. So there was a bit of a first-mover advantage. And once that becomes ubiquitous, I do think what you predicted is going to happen, where legislators just say, well, this is AI-facilitated. And that’s where it’s going to have to go back to face-to-face, bringing those people in.

Susan Pendergrass (11:08) I think you’re absolutely right. As more video content comes out and we all realize it’s AI — I just don’t really believe that any videos are real anymore. I don’t really believe pictures are real. I don’t really believe music is real. And it doesn’t necessarily bother me that much, but I think because of that skepticism and unwillingness to believe in digital content, things happening in real life right in front of us are going to take on higher and higher value, so that we know for sure that if I’m speaking to a legislator, it is me saying it and what’s coming out of my head. That’s about the only way we’re going to know if something is real — or the default is just going to become AI-generated.

Todd Davidson (12:01) 100%, I absolutely agree. And that’s where I think organizations like ShowMe are well positioned. Because you’re in the state of Missouri, you can be in Jefferson City or you can be in St. Louis or Kansas City in those face-to-face relationships. It’s going to make your government affairs personnel far more valuable, your fundraisers who can be face-to-face with donors far more valuable, grassroots activists that are face-to-face. It’s going to put a premium on face-to-face interactions for sure. I agree — there’s going to be so much content out there. You’re still going to need content because that gives you credibility, it gives you what you’re going to talk about. But then you’ve got to pair that with the face-to-face interaction, otherwise it’ll just get ignored.

Susan Pendergrass (12:47) And you can definitely see the gap when people are generating stuff through AI and they don’t know the subject matter enough — like you said about the attorney. But there is definitely a role for humans to say, I mean, I do this all the time with AI: I’ll say give me five of these things, give me five infographics or something like that. But the human has to know which one is the best or which one makes the most compelling argument. AI simply really can’t do that. So while some people would love to believe that AI is going to run the world, I do believe there is an emerging role for human discernment to know which AI products are better than other AI products. Would you agree with that?

Todd Davidson (13:32) Yeah, 100%. I think the sweet spot is utilizing AI to make yourself more efficient or do things that you don’t like doing. But then that raises you up into that discernment phase where you’re the one making the call. I do this all the time — I’m having conversations with AI to increase the outputs. I should not spend any time making infographics. I’m not good at it. But I can have a conversation with AI where it produces that infographic much more effectively than I could. I’ve also found that, if you put the prompting on it, it can help you find those particular sources that you’re looking for. Say you want to write a survey on school choice research — it can help you gather all of those materials much faster. But then you have to make sure that it’s of high quality.

Susan Pendergrass (14:35) What do you think about the current pushback on AI-generated pictures? Do you think that is just a learning phase we all need to get through? Some top artists on Spotify have been determined to be AI-generated.

Todd Davidson (14:57) Really?

Susan Pendergrass (14:59) Yeah. The number two Christian artist is just AI, and across all genres there are artists with millions of subscribers who are just AI-generated music based on what AI knows we all like. So we do like it. Does it matter that there’s no real person writing the music? I don’t know.

Todd Davidson (15:12) It’s kind of sad. Yeah.

Susan Pendergrass (15:21) I know the initial reaction is, that’s sad. But then after a while you’re like, I don’t know.

Todd Davidson (15:26) There is going to be intense pushback to all things AI. AI is very unpopular right now. I saw some polling just last week that showed it is the number one concern of voters. There will be a populist pushback against AI. We’re seeing this pushback against the data centers. There’s even polling that showed a plurality of the population believes it’s immoral to use AI. And I think it gets at the core of some of what you’re talking about here — yes, there’s this very popular, satisfying music, but it loses some human element because there’s not a human behind it. I do think we’re going to see a lot of pushback to AI on multiple dimensions. There’s that cultural dimension. There’s the economic anxiety dimension right now: a fear that AI is driving up energy costs, a fear that AI could take my job. There’s going to be pretty significant pushback. Right now we’re mostly seeing that in anti-data center efforts, trying to stop the building up of data centers across the country. I was looking at some Democratic pollsters today who were pitching that Democrats should advocate for a guaranteed job, guaranteed income, guaranteed healthcare, and a guaranteed home if you lose your job to AI. That kind of populist messaging is going to resonate with a lot of the public. What is the response going to be to that? What are the other solutions that we could advocate for that both allow the continued growth and opportunity and also allow continued innovation around AI, because we’re going to need AI to continue to develop?

Susan Pendergrass (17:30) It’s already here. I mean, we’re doing this in reverse order. And I think my opinion is that massive new technologies always get pushback — like the car. People were on their horses, and then we started designing roads for cars. Calculators got a lot of pushback, the internet got a lot of pushback. But ultimately people decided that they liked it better. I think AI is the same — we just have to figure out how to work with it. And I know that it is threatening to take a lot of jobs, but I see it more as a good thing. It gives us an opportunity to become the expert over AI. AI is not going to be the expert — we still need the human component. Like you said, face-to-face interactions. Legislators are still going to know what Missourians want and how to represent their constituents, and those are real-world issues. The data center pushback is because I don’t want to look out my window and hear a buzz and see a data center — I don’t want all that land going to data centers. That’s a real-world, in-person issue. But I just think we’re going to have to learn to work with it. I don’t think robots are going to — maybe this is where I don’t want to say things out loud — but maybe the robots will take over the world, I don’t know. But personally I feel like it is helpful to get a lot more content out, because you don’t know what’s going to resonate with stakeholders. Whether it’s a video or an infographic or a report or a different type of content, the fact that we can generate these things much more quickly I think is a benefit to us, and it makes the in-person time more meaningful to me.

Todd Davidson (19:11) You’re absolutely right. When a new technology comes out there’s going to be pushback, and organizations like ours have to figure out what’s the policy framework that allows that innovation to thrive without getting in the way. And fortunately we have a lot of those policies already. Like Avery, your colleague at Show-Me Institute, talks a lot about energy. One of the biggest pushbacks on AI is that it’s driving up energy costs. There’s some research that shows that’s not quite what’s happening. What’s happening is a lot of green policies that got passed in the 2010s are coming to roost — the renewable portfolio standards and those things are really what’s driving up energy costs. But even still, what can we do to make energy more affordable and reliable, even with a bunch of data centers added to the grid? And Avery’s got good policy on this: expanding nuclear power, expanding the use of reliable energy sources.

Susan Pendergrass (20:23) It’s separating out consumer electricity from data center electricity. You can carve these things differently.

Todd Davidson (20:29) Yeah, that’s another one — where the data center has its own power source. So there are policies out there that can mitigate it. And on the job question, unfortunately AI is happening at the same time that we’re having a continued cost of living and inflation issue. It’s one more thing that is driving anxiety. It’s not the root cause of what’s going on — we’ve got other factors that we need to address to get inflation under control, particularly on the energy side.

Susan Pendergrass (21:08) Yeah, but I do think it’s great that we have so many opportunities to expand or improve how we do things. In our little corner of the world, which is think tanks, we’ve been doing things kind of the same way for a long time. So I think a new approach to how we do business is a welcome change, and I think we could be a lot more effective.

Todd Davidson (21:38) Yeah, I think we’re going to see far more productive think tanks on the research side. On the litigation side, I was talking to Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty. They litigate a lot of cases. With the advent of AI, every lawyer essentially got a legal clerk right away. They went from nine lawyers and a handful of legal clerks to nine lawyers who each now have their own AI legal clerk. It’s dramatically expanded the number of cases they can take on. And the same thing on the research side. On the marketing side, production of content is going to be quite a bit easier and more cost effective as well.

Susan Pendergrass (22:26) Well, I appreciate having a chance to talk to somebody who has a positive perspective on it, because I do hear a lot of doom and gloom when it comes to AI. I was reminded by somebody that many of the scenarios in movies and books about AI are very dystopian, but perhaps it’ll be utopian. We don’t know. It’s all in how we approach it, right?

Todd Davidson (22:48) Yeah, it is. It’s going to be an exciting new world that we live in and we’re right on the frontier.

Susan Pendergrass (22:54) Anyone with little kids, like you — who knows what the world’s going to look like when they’re going to college. So you’ve got to stay flexible, right? Well, thanks so much, Todd. I appreciate you coming and talking to us about it. We’ll have to talk about it again sometime soon when the whole thing has changed.

Todd Davidson (23:02) Yep, stay flexible and always be learning. Yeah, sounds good. Thanks, Susan.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post AI, Think Tanks, and the Future of Policy Work with Todd Davidson appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A version of the following commentary appeared in the Columbia Missourian.

As technology companies try to meet the skyrocketing demand for AI-specialized computing capacity, they are dotting the country with data centers to the dismay of some and the delight of others. As is all too often the case in Missouri, many of these companies are being offered taxpayer-supported subsidies or tax exemptions.

For example, Independence, Missouri, is giving Nebius more than $6 billion in tax breaks over the next 20 years for a “hyper-scale” data center, and Montgomery County has offered Amazon hundreds of millions in tax abatements to build a data center near New Florence. But why would subsidies be needed when it seems like data-center developers have money to burn and are desperate for suitable building locations?

Recent actions of data-center developers suggest that it is not the cost of building and operating those facilities that is the barrier; the main problems appear to be finding pathways to secure reliable energy generation and getting their centers online smoothly and quickly (speed-to-operation).

These two obstacles are so serious that the major technology companies (Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, etc.) recently met with President Trump and signed the “Ratepayer Protection Pledge” to supply and pay for their own power for their AI data centers.

Why would these companies agree to take on this expense? Because their constraint is not cash. For these firms, time is money. The costs of delays in permitting and interconnection outweigh the value of a local tax incentive.

The negative effects of economic development subsidies and tax breaks are well known. When local officials offer these incentives, they diminish positive benefits that could come from a new data-center development: increased property-tax revenue to fill in the gaps for local services or be used to lower the overall tax rate of the community.

With all of this in mind, rather than just doing what most other states do (handing out checks or tax exemptions) Missouri should work on policies that actually deliver what these companies need most: pathways to secure and reliable energy generation, regulatory certainty, and speed-to-operation.

For local communities, this means they should not offer taxpayer dollars. Even with big tech agreeing to pay for their own power, many municipalities will still try to lure projects with incentives. No doubt the companies will take whatever money is offered to them, but subsidies are unlikely to significantly drive their decisions about where to locate.

Instead, local communities should offer a stable, predictable permitting environment and a suitable location to build. That would help address the greater desire for certainty and speed-to-operation.

And at the state level we should think even bigger. Policies like consumer-regulated electricity (CRE) could help make Missouri a true hub for data center development—without using unnecessary subsidies.

CRE would enable private electricity providers to serve large, energy-intensive customers independent of the existing, permission-heavy grid structure by allowing them to build their own power plants. Rather than spreading the costs for this infrastructure, CRE would create a “parallel path to energy abundance” —one financed by the large customers who demand the power.

CRE would allow these data centers to work with a private partner to meet their own energy needs, with less red tape, more certainty, more control, and more freedom to innovate. These benefits are likely to be more appealing than subsidies.

Unfortunately, offering subsidies seems to be a reflexive reaction in Missouri when there is an opportunity to attract a new business. But especially in this case, Missouri would be better off focusing on what the data center sector really needs. Efficient regulatory and permitting policies (like CRE), a predictable and stable environment in which to construct, and abundant energy would be far better suited to attracting and improving data center development than taxpayer dollars.

The post Why Hand Out Subsidies to Data-Center Developers? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A version of the following commentary appeared in the Mound City Messenger.

A bad idea doesn’t get better with age. Bad ideas aren’t wine, jeans, or your high school memories. The tax subsidies for the Post-Dispatch building redevelopment in downtown St. Louis were a bad idea back in 2019 when the development was proposed, and they are a bad idea now.

Using tax subsidies for economic development rarely benefits the public. Instead, it lowers the risk and increases the returns for private investors. Under a capitalist system, the relationship between risk and reward for investors can be a wonderful thing, but in recent decades the government has somehow decided the public should get involved in private business dealings through tax subsidies and incentives. Taxpayers in St. Louis were left holding the bag for the failed St. Louis Marketplace tax increment financing (TIF) plan, the tax subsidy package for the Renaissance Hotel that was literally sold on the courthouse steps, and numerous other failed, subsidized enterprises. Most economic development schemes are like an expensive game of musical chairs in which the taxpayer is always the one with nowhere to sit.

The tax subsidy package for the old Post-Dispatch building at 900 N. Tucker on the northern edge of downtown St. Louis was approved by the Board of Aldermen in 2019. It primarily consisted of a $12 million TIF package. The summary included with the legislation featured the normal jargon required for such bills, and it included a statement that the development “will have approximately 1,250 jobs with an average salary of $76,500.”

How has that jobs promise worked out? Well, OK at first. The most recent annual TIF report (2024) filed by the developers with the state auditor repeated the same number of 1,250 estimated jobs created. It also listed 830 jobs created so far. There are two ways to look at that number, and both are accurate. The first is that, once again, developers exaggerated their job creation in order to get the subsidies they wanted. That often happens, and it may have happened here. The second is that getting to two-thirds of the promised jobs is actually better than many other subsidized developments, and maybe the developers deserve some credit. Not enough credit to justify all the subsidies in the first place, but, you know, some.

Except that recent actions indicate that the development is highly unlikely to ever get to 1,250, and it may quickly move in the other direction. The largest tenant in the redevelopment at 900 N. Tucker is Block, formerly known as Square. As you may have read, Block recently announced that it was laying off 4,000 people companywide, almost half of its total workforce. How many of those layoffs will be in St. Louis in unknown at this time, but the company previously announced much smaller layoffs in Missouri in both 2024 and 2025, so it seems unlikely that its St. Louis office will be unscathed.

I am not judging the company about the layoffs. If artificial intelligence is making some employees obsolete (the company’s stated reason for the move) then those people should be let go so they can do something else with their lives. That’s the creative destruction of capitalism. But this situation is a perfect example of why cities and counties should not give subsidies to private companies based on promises of employment, growth, renewal, or whatever the vibe of the moment is.

Numerous economic studies have disproved the belief that tax subsidies lead to economic growth. If tax subsidies worked, the City of St. Louis would already be awash in riches. Tax incentives have been piled on top of tax subsidies under every acronym under the sun for decades. None of it has worked. The city should focus on keeping tax rates level and low for everyone, not high for most and low (because of special exemptions) for the politically connected. A reliance on subsidies rewards cronyism, over-promising, and political grandstanding, but it doesn’t lead to real economic success. Just ask the Block employees who may be laid off soon.

The post Tax Subsidies Are a Mistake We Can’t Seem to Learn From appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Last legislative session, Missouri lawmakers took a swing at addressing anxiety over data centers increasing electricity rates with the passage of Senate Bill (SB) 4. This bill requires that customers with loads over 100 megawatts (MW) pay their share of costs associated with connecting to the regulated grid (the Missouri Public Service Commissions recently expanded that rule to 75 MW). For reference, 100 MW is roughly equivalent to the electricity needs of 80,000 U.S. households.

There has been confusion about whether average Missourians’ rates would increase due to data centers. It’s understandable that people might be confused about some language in the bill. For example, what exactly does “any unjust or unreasonable costs arising from the service to such customers” or “pay their share of costs” mean?

A recent hearing at a St. Louis Board of Alderman committee meeting brought some needed clarity to the matter. When questioned, Ameren’s manager of economic development clarified that “all Ameren customers, including residential customers, pay for expanding the grid through building new power plants through rate increases, and that may be needed to accommodate large-load customers.”

In plainer English, average Missouri ratepayers would pay for new power plants constructed to meet data center demand—which could be a hefty bill if Missouri does indeed need new power plants.

Major technology companies (Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, xAI, Oracle, and Open AI) are meeting with President Trump to sign a pledge that they will supply and pay for their own power for artificial intelligence data centers.

So average Missourians won’t be paying for new data centers at all?

Potentially, but it depends on the deal that is finalized with the major tech companies.

While there is some uncertainty about who will pay for what, Missouri could bring clarity by allowing consumer-regulated electricity (CRE).

CRE offers a private, parallel pathway to energy abundance, and gives data centers a private partner (CRE utility) to meet their own energy needs with less red tape, more certainty, more control, and more freedom to innovate. A CRE utility would develop and operate generation on behalf of large-load customers that prefer not to own and operate power plants themselves.

SB 4 was a good start, but Missouri can go further in protecting ratepayers and attracting investment. Allowing CRE could create a clear, structural pathway that could not only further protect ratepayers, but also provide attractive, tangible benefits to the developers paying for their own energy needs.

The post Who’s Paying for What with Data Centers? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As a writer, there are moments when someone else articulates an idea so well that rewriting it in my own words would be unnecessary. A recent op-ed in The Hill did exactly that, clearly laying out the energy challenges facing the United States:

The U.S. electricity sector is a slow-moving maze of regulations, shaped by decade-long transmission approvals, time-intensive interconnection studies for new generators and large new customers, and overlapping layers of state, regional and federal bureaucracy. . . . The regulatory thicket surrounding the electricity industry was tolerable when the pace of change was slow. However, with the rise of AI and renewed growth from manufacturing and electrification, we can no longer endure a sclerotic grid.

In addition to reforming our rigid, reluctant-to-adapt grid, there are questions about whether average ratepayers should be on the hook for increased electricity demand being driven by a few large customers.

In the midst of all of these concerns, there is a U.S. Senate bill that could help fix the problem: S.3585 – DATA Act of 2026. The bill was recently referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

I have written about consumer-regulated electricity (CRE) for Missouri, which would reduce the number of state-level regulations that off-grid CRE utilities (CREUs) would face. (You can click here if you’re interested in what a CRE policy might look like in practice.) However, even if it were allowed in Missouri, there would still be many federal-level regulations that would diminish the benefits of the new practice.

That is where the DATA Act becomes so vital. The act would exempt certain new CREUs from specific federal regulations that apply to the broader grid. If our state and federal governments approve CRE, there would be a pathway for large electricity users like data centers and aluminum plants to more quickly generate their own electricity without impacting the rates of average Missourians. That would be a win for all of us.

All of this suggests that the DATA Act of 2026 is something to watch in Washington, D.C. But Missouri should not wait until the federal government makes its move. We should be proactive and allow CREs in our state, creating a pathway to address modern energy challenges that would become even more viable if federal reforms under the DATA Act follow.

The post Keep an Eye on the DATA Act in Washington, D.C. appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00)
Great. Mike McShane, EdChoice, always great to have you on the podcast. I read your Substack, Informed Choice. I know you do not write them all, but you write a lot of them, and I think they are super interesting. A month or so ago, there was a lot of “what’s out, what’s in,” closing down 2025 and starting 2026. I really liked your post about six words for 2026, but…

Mike McShane (00:03)
Always great to be with you. Thanks for having me. I tried to.

Susan Pendergrass (00:28)
I want to talk about that, but generally speaking, I have been having this feeling, and I think we have even talked about this on the podcast, that something has changed in K–12 education in the United States. Something seems different than it did. You track the number of kids in private school choice programs, which took forever to get to a million, and now it is like a million and a half, right? It just seems to have been growing so fast.

Mike McShane (00:52)
Yeah. I think there has definitely been a shift. I have noticed that, with the start of the year and legislative sessions starting across the country, I am talking to journalists and other folks, and it seems like the normal conversation I would have had in the past was, “Are we going to have these programs, is there going to be choice, or what?” Now it is, “What is the shape of it going to be?”

So much of choice now is being taken as a given. I think we are even seeing that within public school districts. Even in states that might not have private school choice or robust charter schools, they are at least saying, “Parents are going to need to have choice, and maybe we can keep the genie in the bottle by just having it within public school districts, or in between public school districts.” But the idea that we are going to go back to residentially assigned public schools…

Susan Pendergrass (01:41)
Like Kansas.

Mike McShane (01:50)
…with the odd aberration here and there, it just seems like that shift has happened. Now it is a question of what it is going to look like, and it is going to look different in different states. It is not a “whether,” it is a “how.”

Susan Pendergrass (02:03)
That’s right, because we have a whole bunch of second-generation choosers, right? We have parents of young kids whose parents chose it, so they are not, like you said, going to go backwards.

Another interesting outcome you have talked about over the years is that the Catholic school movement is growing again, right? Like in Florida, we are seeing a resurgence in Catholic schools, and in Iowa, because parents did not necessarily not want to send their kids to Catholic schools. Some got mad about the scandals…

Mike McShane (02:05)
Yeah, for sure. Iowa, Florida, and probably other places when data comes out, for sure.

Susan Pendergrass (02:32)
…or they did not want to pay tuition, and now they can. And certainly this survey you all have done for so long, on where parents would send their kids to school versus where they do send their kids to school, maybe we are going to see some sort of convergence where parents can actually send their kids to the school they want.

A couple of the words you said are going to be big in education in 2026, “participants,” is that right? Participants.

Mike McShane (02:34)
Yeah. Totally, absolutely. “Participants” is one of them.

Susan Pendergrass (03:02)
And “supply side.” What do you mean by “participants”?

Mike McShane (03:06)
“Participants” is, there is this big debate now, and in the piece I started with very general words that are part of the broader conversation, and then I got very narrow into school choice research words. “Participants” is kind of a school choice research word, but not entirely. I think it is going to be part of broader debates about choice in general.

There is a big question out there, who uses these programs? Who is going to participate? There are competing theories. Skeptics say it is going to be all rich kids, or kids who are already in private schools. Stronger advocates say it will be low-income kids, or kids desperate for more options.

The answer is probably somewhere in the middle, and it will probably be different in different places at different times. Some of the emerging research suggests that when universal private school choice programs first start, for reasons that are perfectly predictable, students who are already in private schools are the first movers.

Susan Pendergrass (04:01)
Sure.

Mike McShane (04:28)
That is probably because private schools find out about these programs and have an audience. They can say, “Hey, you all know how you are paying to go here? Now you do not have to do that anymore.” And then over time, the circle expands outward.

Susan Pendergrass (04:33)
They pass out a piece of paper in every backpack, yeah. “You should get this.”

Mike McShane (04:48)
More and more, those families have neighbors, cousins, and people they play YMCA basketball with. The word gets out over time. A lot of traditional channels for educating people do not work as well. It is not like everyone watches the nightly news or reads the local newspaper.

Susan Pendergrass (05:08)
“Put it on your website.” That’s a Missouri legislative mainstay, put it on your website.

Mike McShane (05:14)
So a lot of this comes out via word of mouth or discussions. You could look at the same state and see participation change over time.

Because these programs are rolling out in different states at different times, there is not going to be one national answer to who is participating. It could be the first year in Mississippi, but the second year in Alabama, and the makeup of students will be different. Because of the nationalized nature of coverage, people will keep pushing for “the one answer,” but there isn’t one. Though, to be fair, some people will say there is. I do not think that will be true.

Susan Pendergrass (06:07)
Yeah, I get a ton of questions around the rural issue. Either it is going to be the demise of our rural school system because we are all going to close, or rural families do not need it, which are opposites. It is opposites, right?

Mike McShane (06:09)
Yeah. It cannot be both. And yet a frequent criticism is that it will be both of them.

Susan Pendergrass (06:25)
But I get that a lot. “There are no private schools for them to go to,” and “it is going to cause rural schools to close.”

Certainly in Missouri, even our MOScholars program is quite small, and we do not really have charter schools outside of two districts, two very far away places. So I think for a lot of folks in Missouri, it is mysterious, who would do this, and why would anyone want it? And of course, “All the poor kids are going to go to the wealthy school districts.” Still a lot of talk about property taxes. It is almost like 2005 in Missouri, a lot of that going on.

But the reality is, in long-running programs, and now I am thinking open enrollment, anywhere you let parents pick, you get a lot of rural participation. They have the fewest choices, right? And you get a lot of urban participation, and some suburban participation. Like you said, I do not think you can…

Mike McShane (06:55)
Yeah, right.

Susan Pendergrass (07:20)
I have had so many parents over the years say, “We do not need that here because all our schools are good.” And I am like, I promise you there is a child who got on the bus with a stomach ache this morning because they did not want to go to school, for whatever reason. They think the teachers do not like them, or they are being bullied, whatever it is. I promise you there are families who would leave if they could easily do it.

Mike McShane (07:30)
Yeah, for sure. Totally.

One thing that is going to be interesting, as we watch this play out, with questions about who is participating and who is leaving public schools, is that there are broader trends of public school enrollment decreasing. You hear in some states, “My gosh, all these public schools are closing because of choice programs.” But the state next door that does not have a choice program, their public schools are closing too, because there are just fewer kids than there were before.

So that is another thing we have to disentangle, the broader population trends. I was just seeing something earlier about how congressional seats and electoral college seats are going to change because of population shifts.

Susan Pendergrass (08:17)
It’s huge.

Mike McShane (08:26)
You look at states like New York and California losing large numbers of people, Florida and Texas increasing numbers of people. These are people in general, because that is how it all happens. We have to start with that baseline and then layer these other things on top, because I feel like school choice is going to get blamed for this, even in places where it does not exist.

Susan Pendergrass (08:36)
Yeah. I cannot tell you how many times I have talked about this and shocked people. Every school district in St. Louis County, for example, has declining enrollment by large numbers. Clayton’s declining enrollment, Ladue declining enrollment, all declining enrollment. People are like, “Where are they going?” And I say, “They were not born.” They simply were not born.

We had our biggest kindergarten cohort in 2013. That moved through to senior year of high school like two years ago. It is just demographics. They just were not born.

Mike McShane (09:00)
Right? Yeah.

Susan Pendergrass (09:20)
We have net out-migration of some groups of people, people with bachelor’s degrees, but for sure, it is demographics. These kids were not born.

There is going to be this push and pull between five-to-seventeen-year-olds and retirees, basically, because we are getting more old people and fewer young people. Do we build a school or a nursing home? I think it is going to be a thing.

And we still have school districts getting bonds, 30-year bonds, to build schools and buy buses. I do not know if that is the right answer. At least the charter school sector, and probably similarly the private school sector, figured out how to not be in the real estate business, how to lease a building, or do different types of arrangements. They are going to benefit from this, while the public school system is still building schools. The kids are not being born, but we will see how that plays out.

Another thing you mentioned, one of your words I have been thinking about a lot, two of them, is “transparency.” I have wondered, can I start calling accountability transparency? Because accountability is kind of negative, but transparency, of course.

And you talk about “rage bait.” Sorry, I am rolling these into one, but with early media stories around some of these private school choice programs, like Arizona, people really jumped on what parents were spending their money on. As though they cannot be trusted to spend this money, in the way the public school system can be trusted with billions, I mean trillions, of dollars. Parents cannot be trusted with this $8,000, they will simply…

Mike McShane (10:52)
Totally. This is the irony. The irony is kind of like the discussion earlier, how there are no places in rural America, and everyone will leave rural schools to go to these non-existent places. Both cannot be true at the same time.

We cannot say these programs are not transparent and then talk about all the individual purchases families are making. That has to be transparent for you to be able to make those arguments. It is kind of a shell game people are playing when they talk about transparency.

When you say, “Here are ways in which ESA programs are not transparent,” your research is a perfect example of the opposite. Transaction-level data, you have published papers that offer transaction-level data on every purchase in the ESA program.

Susan Pendergrass (11:59)
Trust me, there are hundreds of thousands of records.

Mike McShane (12:00)
Right, hundreds of thousands of records that are available for anybody to look at.

I think this is actually good. We need to have discussions about what should be included in these programs and what should not. It is an education savings account, not just a savings account, so we have to draw the borders around what is an educational purchase and what is not.

We live in a big, vibrant democracy, so we need to have these discussions. Should you be able to buy a trampoline, or a Lego set, or whatever? Let’s talk about it. That’s fine. Maybe we decide in some cases it is allowed, and in some cases it is not.

This is part of transparency and accountability. You are democratically accountable, we need to participate in this.

But I am still blown away by the number of people who claim these programs are not transparent, when what we know about what parents are doing is more granular and more detailed than any public school district, any charter school network, almost any institution you are going to see. You just do not get transaction-level data on anything.

We can debate whether those are good purchases or not good purchases, but to say they are not being transparent is wild to me.

Susan Pendergrass (13:09)
No, I mean, my kids all went to public school. They certainly went to amusement parks. They certainly watched a lot of movies. They would not want anyone scrutinizing every, you know, you have 30 teachers buying 30 whiteboards. Decisions were made that were not the best.

I did not see anything in the transaction-level data that made me think, “This is outrageous.” And who am I to say woodworking is not an okay thing for your child to learn? Swimming lessons, I had to swim. I do not know.

I do not want to get into that conversation because I assume the best intentions for parents. I cannot understand why a parent would invest the time and effort to get into these programs to simply buy themselves a trampoline, and not really care if their kids are reading or not. I do not understand that, but that is what…

Mike McShane (14:04)
Right.

Susan Pendergrass (14:15)
…they are throwing mud at the wall to try to discredit. Clearly, it is what parents want.

I am baffled that, when you look at politics in the United States right now, those on the left just refuse to accept this fact. It is a fact. Parents want to choose their school.

There are certainly Democrats for education reform, and plenty of people working hard from the left, but the general approach feels very last century. The teachers’ union saying, “Nobody wants this, we have to stop it at all costs. We have to put a halt to this and put more money into the public school your address sends you to. We need to fund those fully first before we can ever let kids out.” That is such a failed argument to me.

Mike McShane (15:18)
Look, this is why “accountability” and “transparency” are two of the words for 2026. Opponents to choice have figured out they cannot just go out hammer-and-tongs against it, or directly say, “We are against choice.” People do not learn lessons in politics, but they learn that one.

I was looking at the gubernatorial candidate just to Missouri’s north in Iowa. It was interesting. There was an interview with the Democratic candidate for governor, Rob Sand. He would not come out and condemn the ESA program outright. The interviewer perceptively drilled down and asked, “Are you saying you are not opposed to this program, you just want changes?” He never said yes to that. He has never said, “I am for this program.” If you read between the lines, he is saying, “I am not for this program, but I cannot come out and say it.”

His pivot was immediately, “I am just talking about accountability and transparency.” He wants private schools to follow every single one of the same rules that public schools do, and expects them to somehow do better.

Part of it is, these are folks working in red states who need to make arguments that appeal to conservatives. Accountability appeals to conservatives. Fiscal responsibility appeals to conservatives, not wanting to waste tax dollars. So it is smart strategy. People need to see what it is.

If this is a blue state, these exact same people are making arguments that appeal to progressives. But you are in a red state, so they are trying to make arguments that appeal to you. If you think about it for a little bit longer, what they are saying does not hold a lot of water.

Susan Pendergrass (17:41)
Yeah, and with this federal tax credit program, even though every state has to decide whether or not they are going to take the money, it is going to be a weird shifting of resources. If I live in a state that says, “We are not going to take the money,” that is fine. I can give my $1,700 to a scholarship group in any state. I will just send my $1,700 to another state.

Some states, like Virginia, the governor, one of the last things he did when he left was opt in. Now the new governor is going to have to make this weird choice. Do I want to go against it? If you looked at any poll of parents, any poll, you would know they want to be able to choose where their kids go to school. Do you really want to be the person that withdraws?

Mike McShane (18:21)
Yeah, when she seems to be in a perfect position to just say, “Oh, the last guy did this on the way out, so I guess we are going to do it.” Once they do it for a year and everybody is fine with it, it is just, “Oh well, whatever.”

Susan Pendergrass (18:33)
I do not know. I did not do it.

I think it is going to be really interesting because, again, the way we started this, there is a groundswell. I do not think you are going to turn it back. If you stay on the side of saying it is better when kids can only go to their assigned public school, you are in quicksand. You are going to bury yourself.

Mike McShane (19:03)
Yeah. The only thing I would say, and it was another one of my six words, is “rage bait.” It is always lingering in the background for me. I am seeing it more and more, all day, every day, stuff that shows up in your feed deliberately to upset you, terrify you, whatever.

Rage bait is unpredictable. You never know what is going to catch fire and cause a big shift. There is obviously potential for rage bait content, as we mentioned, we have crossed one and a half million, hundreds of thousands of people in various states, with lots of flexibility in what they can buy. People making bad decisions, people stealing things, it is totally possible that happens. Something egregious could happen.

With a large enough population, even very improbable events can happen. One fear I do have is that something rage-bait-y happens and people lose their minds over it.

But this is the key, if one parent in Arizona does something crazy, that does not mean the other 1,499,999 parents around the country should not have the right or opportunity to do this. We have to be able to say, “This is rage bait, this is not actually what is happening.”

Susan Pendergrass (20:51)
Yeah, we have talked about this. Those of us who have pressed for school choice for so long have said, “We will do anything you want, take our arm. We will put all our data out there, we will be as transparent as possible.” And your colleague, Marty Lueken, had a Substack about this recently, like, “We will take half the money. We do not need all the money, half the money will be…”

Mike McShane (21:08)
For sure.

Susan Pendergrass (21:19)
…150 percent transparent. We will jump through all these hoops just to get this thing that everybody wants, and it is from that transparency that we are going to get those stories. We are going to pay for that.

Mike McShane (21:29)
Yeah. It is important for people to be more attuned to the rage bait they are getting. People ask, “Have you seen this thing that happened in this place?” And I am like, okay, yeah, even if it did, what do you extrapolate?

A teacher in Sacramento did something crazy. There are north of a hundred thousand schools across America. There are north of three million public school teachers. At any given moment, someone is doing something dumb. I do not know what to extrapolate from that. It could just be one crazy person.

This is not just education. Across public policy, you point to one person in the military doing something terrible to delegitimize the military in general. Do not fall for this.

To be fair, sometimes we in the school choice movement, or education reform, have done rage bait of our own. People have used social media to point out, “My gosh, look at this assignment that a second-grade teacher in Poughkeepsie did, this is why we need school choice.” People have done that.

The measure with which you measure will be measured back to you. If you live by the sword, die by the sword.

Susan Pendergrass (22:54)
John Oliver did a story on charter schools. Remember, it was the guy in Florida that was letting a charter school be a nightclub at night? There is no way that is representative of charter schools.

Mike McShane (22:58)
Yeah, I remember that.

Susan Pendergrass (23:10)
That was an example I found shocking, but it is not representative. And you are right, they will find those stories.

Mike McShane (23:13)
Yeah, totally. We should all use less rage bait. We should not use rage bait to say just because one teacher in one place did something dumb, that is an indictment of public education in general. Nor should we allow the same thing to be done in reverse, which is, because one family did something crazy, we should not have choice at all.

Susan Pendergrass (23:49)
That leads to another one of your words, “slop.” There is so much talk about AI in schools and what to do about it. Is one person going to figure this out for every school everywhere, or are we all going to figure it out individually?

Mike McShane (24:03)
Yeah, I played out the scenario I am worried about. I do not know if it will happen in 2026, but it might.

We have heard a lot about AI in schools, students cheating, which is real and worrisome. But the specific scenario I have not heard as many people talking about is the prevalence of AI video, and the ability to create videos of things that did not happen.

How many, if you have a student in a classroom, after taking a picture or a short, unrelated video of their teacher, they can put it through a series of prompts, “Hey, have this teacher do,” and then insert whatever horrible thing, say something horrible, do something horrible.

Susan Pendergrass (24:34)
Yeah.

Mike McShane (24:53)
And if you are not savvy, and I will be the first to say I think I am a savvy consumer of the internet, I have been fooled or very close to fooled. AI videos of animals doing things, dogs protecting people from bears, or that one recently that went around with a bald eagle that had ice on its beak that someone knocked off, whatever.

Susan Pendergrass (24:58)
It is like a parlor game, right? No dogs are going off diving boards, just to clarify. The rabbits on the trampoline, these are not happening. But you are right.

Mike McShane (25:20)
People who are not as savvy, the thing I spelled out was, someone does that, and then suddenly the next PTA meeting is flooded with people because this viral thing went around. The superintendent or principal has to say, “This did not happen, it is not real.”

If you do not have the media literacy, it is like one person’s word versus another. “We saw it happen, it is on video.” “No, it did not happen, it is AI.” How we adjudicate those things, and how it could be weaponized by teenagers, or by bad actors, all of that stuff will happen. Whenever a new model is released, everyone tries to break it immediately, they are much more creative than I ever was.

I am worried for teachers, worried for schools, worried for school board meetings. It could be anything. It could be taking video at a football game and saying something happened that did not. Even if it all works out eventually, the time and energy wasted dealing with it…

Now, again, I am hoping more and more schools, this could be a real kick in the rear end to get phones out of schools and say, “We are not going to have phones in schools, because people are going to be making AI videos of their teachers.” That is one of a thousand reasons we should not have phones in schools.

But it is not the only place kids are interacting with one another, or with teachers. So we have to be really skeptical when we see that video of that teacher, or that student, or that principal doing something. Take a deep breath and ask, “Is this video real? Does this pass the smell test? Does this sound like something a teacher would actually do?” I am increasingly worried about that. There are many other things people worry about that I do not really worry about, but AI video in the context of schools, bad news bears.

Susan Pendergrass (27:53)
Yeah, I think we are going to have to start adjusting our thinking to only believing things that happen in front of our face, things we can touch. The prevalence of, you know, Amazon ads now, they are… I mean, I went to get my haircut and somebody was holding up a picture, and she was like, “Okay, well, that is not a real person.” We are going to have to default to disbelief if it is on a phone or on a screen. If it is happening in front of you, you can touch it, you can believe it. But the rest of it, I think we are going to become extra skeptical, because I do not believe much stuff anymore.

Mike McShane (28:22)
Totally. Are schools going to need CCTV cameras everywhere? Are we going to be oddly surveilled in a lot of different ways, just for CYA? “If people are going to be making up fake videos, we need the real video of what is going on.” I do not know how that is going to go, but…

That was the “rage bait” one, my plea to people, please do not fall victim to rage bait. It is pinging parts of our brains that we should not. I get wrapped up in it too. “My God, I cannot believe that is happening.” Then you take 10 seconds and you are like, “Wait, why am I fired up about this road rage incident in South Carolina?” Someone cut somebody off on the highway. Who cares? I am not there. It is not my deal.

I think this “slop” stuff is also something we are going to have to be really cautious about and thoughtful about, because it could cause lots of problems.

Susan Pendergrass (29:35)
Yeah, but then people are like, “I am not going to allow AI, I am going to check it.” I think AI, we are going to have to accept, right? We have to live with it.

Mike McShane (29:41)
Yeah, we are going to have to realize this is just part of it. There will be so many great things that come out of it, the creativity it will unleash.

In our own Substack, a bunch of the graphics we do are AI generated. I could not, I laugh, I have young kids, they are better drawers, I am horrible at it, but I can do this stuff with a couple of prompts in ChatGPT. “Hey, make me…” and they can be funny. You can do someone in the style of a famous painter and suddenly it is a Renaissance painting of me.

That is incredible productivity. The fact that I do not have to have a graphic designer, I can basically do it myself and put out essentially a small newspaper with some contributors and a bit of AI. That is an insane productivity increase, and it is incredible, but we have to be cautious of the downsides.

Susan Pendergrass (30:48)
Finally, your last word, “supply side.” In Missouri, folks will say, “Well, we do not need private school choice in our rural areas, there are no private schools,” as though the supply of private schools is fixed. It is treated like a natural result of how much interest there is, the kind of people who live in the community, and what is there is there, without thinking that if parents suddenly had $7,000 or $8,000 to spend, maybe somebody would open a new school.

Or not even a new school. Maybe somebody would open a visual arts business, or a soccer academy, tutoring, dyslexia therapy, whatever it is they think parents want or need. You would be free to be an entrepreneur in that space. That piece is largely overlooked, because it is like, “We have this many private schools with this many seats, so we can only have this many scholarships.” It is like, no, that is not fixed. Do you think we are going to see a lot of changes in that area?

Mike McShane (32:00)
Yeah, because another dimension where people think things are fixed is not only the number and locations, but the shape of what schools look like. “We are not going to have a private school in this small area because we cannot have a brick-and-mortar building with 30 rooms and 250 kids.” That is not what we are talking about.

If you can get 10 kids together at $8,000 apiece…

Susan Pendergrass (32:26)
There are no buildings.

Mike McShane (32:36)
…you can do a lot of interesting stuff. Especially if you can get space donated, leverage resources in the community, maybe some online stuff, and a local teacher. You could put together a heck of an education on $80,000 or $100,000.

It is happening. What makes it challenging to talk about is that it is happening across different dimensions. At the same time we are talking about Catholic schools growing and starting new schools in a traditional sense, two blocks away in some rented bungalow people are creating a Montessori micro school.

Because these things get spoken about in national terms and in a thousand-word news story, we struggle to discuss multiple dimensions. Existing schools are growing, new schools are emerging, and those new schools are going to look different. Some will grow, some will shrink, all these things can be happening at once.

Our job as researchers and observers is to do a lot of descriptive work, describe what is happening. There has been a push in earlier generations of school choice research toward causal results, horse-race comparisons, “Are they better than public schools?” “Is this type of private school better than that type?” But the only reason we were able to do that in 1998 is because, for a hundred years before, people did descriptive work to know, how many schools, what are they doing? Then you can talk about who is doing better, because you have to decide what they are doing, where they are, who is attending, are there differences.

It is almost like we are starting over.

Susan Pendergrass (34:39)
Yeah.

Mike McShane (35:01)
…doing that basic descriptive work. What is actually happening? What are people doing?

Susan Pendergrass (35:08)
Yeah, I know somebody who started a school in a barn on their property, and the parents came and converted the empty barn to a school. I know somebody who started a mobile school, basically in a big van, so that the school came to their house one day a week. And I know someone who started one in a high-rise in Queens. It is only limited by people’s imagination, basically, right?

And a like-minded group of parents. There are more people homeschooling now than used to be, so you could do this individually, but there are many more opportunities to do it. Parents, what emerged from the pandemic, at least, is they want their kids home maybe two days or three days. That is popular, and people are finding that two days out of the house creates unique opportunities in that space.

I think it is limited by people’s imagination, and some curriculum standards, and perhaps some accountability. But if you can meet those, I think we are seeing this idea.

I am not trying to be anti-traditional public school, but I butted up against this when my kids were little. “We are the only ones who know how to do this, so you have to accept our way of doing it because it is tried and tested and comes out of our schools of education at the universities.” This is the one and only way you have to teach the number line in third grade. “This is how it has to be, we cannot vary it because we are the great equalizer of civic society in the United States.”

Your boss, Rob Enlow, really shut me down on this. It has not panned out. We only read and do math less well each year.

I cannot imagine that letting all these flowers bloom is going to have a worse result. If we fast forward 20 years and look at median earnings and educational attainment rates, and we let this thrive, I think the outcome would improve. I do not see how it goes down.

Mike McShane (37:23)
That is the thing. You mentioned the interesting times we are living in now. So many of the “parade of horribles” choice opponents talked about forever, polarization, balkanization, people retreating to silos, it is like, hey guys, that already happened without choice. You cannot blame choice, because choice did not exist yet for that to happen.

Lots of people pushing each other in the streets went to public schools. Statistically, these are public school graduates having large problems with one another.

The conservative in me says things can always get worse. The fundamental progressive view is things can always get better, and the fundamental conservative view is things could always get worse. That strand in me says, yes, things could get worse. But across a lot of these dimensions, academic outcomes, civic outcomes, there is a lot of room for growth, and not nearly as much bottom end to fall out. So the risks associated with giving people more choices are not nearly as severe as proponents of the traditional public schooling system make it out to be.

Susan Pendergrass (38:58)
Yeah. Well, in Missouri, 40 percent of our fourth graders are below the basic level in reading, which means they cannot read at all. They cannot read. They are illiterate.

Would 40 percent of parents, if given the money to spend on their child’s education, have a nine-year-old and say, “Turns out they cannot read. I tried and tried, we just did not get there. They just cannot read.” I do not think so.

I know this is not the perfect solution, that accountability through parental choice is the answer. I am not saying that. But I do not think that if parents were truly put in charge, four out of 10 would just say, “Gosh darn it, this kid is never going to read, there is probably a lot of opportunity in the service industry.” I do not think so. I think that would be a much better check on the system.

Interesting stuff. Thanks so much for joining us. I really appreciate it, always.

Mike McShane (39:42)
Yep. Yeah. I agree with you. Agreed, 100 percent.

Susan Pendergrass (39:59)
So great to talk to you. What is your Substack called?

Mike McShane (40:02)
Informed Choice, so people can check that out. Informed Choice on Substack. Subscribe, it would be great.

Susan Pendergrass (40:05)
Yeah, it is really interesting. Great. Thanks so much.

Mike McShane (40:10)
Thanks for having me.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post The Six Words Driving the Education Debate in 2026 With Mike McShane appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The investigation and review are intended to protect ratepayers, assess Missouri’s future energy needs, and manage Missouri’s natural resources effectively. These are good objectives, but the hard question is finding a policy solution to match all those goals.

One option I have written about, consumer-regulated electricity (CRE), is worth considering. (If you’re unfamiliar with CRE, you can click the link to learn more.)

Instead of placing new data centers on the existing regulated grid, we could match data centers with an independent CRE utility (CREU). Furthermore, if electricity demand for these data centers falls short of its sky-high projections, then the excess capacity will have been a poor investment. This protects ratepayers by putting private companies on the hook for that risk instead.

There are benefits to data center developers as well. A CREU can be structured around the developer’s reliability needs and preferred energy resources. Projects could also require less transmission, as new generation facilities could be built near their customer base. CRE could be a reliable, economical, and sustainable energy solution to meet current and future energy needs.

Speed to operation is vital in today’s economy, and data center projects have experienced difficulties securing permissions from the various layers of government. While many hurdles would still remain (like local zoning), CRE projects would not require permissions from the Missouri Public Service Commission since they would not be connected to the regulated grid. At the federal level, Senator Tom Cotton recently introduced the DATA Act, which would exempt CREUs from federal regulations not designed for on-site, self-contained power systems. While still early, this legislation is worth monitoring and could further increase the speed to operation.

The governor has made it clear that he wants to meet growing energy demand in a way that protects ratepayers and addresses Missouri’s current and future energy needs. CRE is a policy approach that matches those objectives.

The post Consumer-Regulated Electricity (CRE) and Data Centers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

David Stokes, Elias Tsapelas, and Avery Frank join Zach Lawhorn to break down Governor Mike Kehoe’s State of the State address, including what we know so far about his plan to eliminate Missouri’s income tax, proposals to modernize Missouri’s tax system, and the need to rein in state spending. They also discuss open enrollment legislation, the new Missouri Advanced Nuclear Task Force and AI strategy executive order, the push to privatize downtown St. Louis convention center operations, what the Dome’s history says about stadium subsidies, Kansas City’s stadium debate, what they are watching in Jefferson City, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post 2026 Missouri State of the State | Roundtable appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I remember when Game of Thrones was at the height of its popularity and its catchphrase seemed to be plastered everywhere I looked: “Winter is coming.” Today a similarly ominous refrain is echoing across the energy sector: Data centers are coming.

A data center is a physical location that houses servers and related hardware that process, store, and transmit digital information. As artificial intelligence use expands, demand for computing power is also rising at a feverish pace, driving the need for more and more energy-intensive data centers.

As in Game of Thrones, there is a certain mystery surrounding how dire the situation truly is.

In April 2024, Goldman Sachs forecast that data centers would rise from 2.5% to 8% of all U.S. electricity usage by 2030. However, Google recently reported a 33-fold reduction in their energy usage for AI text prompts in a single year. It is difficult to predict how much more energy will be needed in the coming years.

Current Missouri law protects average ratepayers from “any unjust or unreasonable costs from service to such customers [such as data centers].” However, this does not mean none of the burden of building new generation capacity will fall on ratepayers, and an overbuild based on overly aggressive demand projections could leave them paying for unused assets.

On the other hand, failure to build sufficient power supply (whether due to demand miscalculation or delays in constructing multiple plants) could cause Missouri to miss out on significant investment in the state. Worse, an underbuild could create real reliability concerns. There is real tension here, and a great deal of pressure to predict and build effectively.

Fortunately, there is a policy that could help alleviate some of this pressure: consumer regulated electricity (CRE).

The premise of CRE is fairly straightforward: allow consumer-regulated electricity utilities (CREUs) that are disconnected from the ratepayer-supported grid to create “private energy islands” for the largest new customers (such as data centers). This approach makes sense for two reasons:

1. The anticipated surge in demand is expected to be fueled by a small number of users. By isolating the electricity supply of these customers from the ratepayer-supported grid, CRE can help shield everyday customers from spikes in energy prices.
2. The increase in demand is predicted, but it isn’t certain. CRE ties both the risk and the possible rewards of building new power plants to the companies that will use the resulting energy.

This year, New Hampshire passed a law to allow CREUs to generate, transmit, distribute, and sell electricity as long as they operate independently from existing utilities and do not serve the general public (CREUs are still subject to appropriate oversight, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for nuclear plants). Missouri could do something similar, and there are many reasons to do so.

#1: Protecting Ratepayers from Risk

If the projected surge in electricity demand materializes, CRE could help lessen the severity of rate increases by allowing some large customers to be served by independent CREUs. Because these facilities are privately financed and serve only their customers, their costs would not be spread across all ratepayers. If electricity demand falls short of projections, then the excess capacity will have been a poor investment.

#2: Accelerating Capacity Buildout and Investment

 Missouri needs to build new generation capacity. In a permission-first, regulated environment, that process can be slow. Letting CREUs build and operate their own generation facilities could help keep economic development from being constrained by red tape.

Further, CREUs could offer more tailored payment structures and allow companies to align their energy sources with their own environmental or strategic goals—without forcing all ratepayers to work toward those same goals.

#3: Alleviating Pressure

Not only does Missouri face new demand growth, but our two largest electric utilities are dealing with coal-plant retirements. This transition would be challenging even without a new surge in demand. CREUs would allow utilities to focus more on serving their current customers.

CRE could be an ideal response to an abrupt surge in energy demand driven by a narrow set of customers. It would provide price security to everyday ratepayers, give data centers control over their power supply, and decrease the need for governments to predict future energy demand. Data centers are coming, and CRE is worth exploring as a way for Missouri to prepare for them.

The post Data Centers Will Require Innovation in Missouri’s Energy Sector appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Rising electricity demand and retiring coal plants put Missouri at risk of higher prices and unreliable power.

The Solution

Create a nuclear advisory council and explore consumer-regulated electricity (CRE) to position Missouri for next-generation nuclear power.

Key Facts

• Nuclear energy is reliable, powerful, and clean.
• 71% of Americans agree that the United States should “definitely build more nuclear power plants in the future,” up from 47% in 1998.
• Businesses rank energy availability among their top priorities in site-selection decisions.

The Growing Demand for Nuclear Energy

Nuclear power has played a pivotal role in meeting historical energy needs. Today, electricity demand is growing and the primary drivers are well known: data centers, artificial intelligence, and industrial manufacturing.

Amid rising demand, nuclear energy has emerged as a rare point of political agreement, as both the Biden and Trump administrations have endorsed more nuclear power—with the latter issuing pivotal executive orders to bring long-needed reform. Outside the Oval Office, the ADVANCE Act (for nuclear energy) flew through the Senate (88-2) and the House (393-13) before being signed by President Biden.

Missouri has long possessed unique strengths to lead in nuclear energy, but now, national-level momentum and reform have created new opportunities.

A Missouri Nuclear Advisory Council

Tennessee’s nuclear advisory council has seen tremendous success since its creation by executive order in 2023.

Missouri could form a similar council to unite the state’s brightest minds in the energy sector to identify regulatory, workforce, and educational challenges and strengths while highlighting opportunities such as coal-to-nuclear transitions—at no cost to taxpayers.

The council could reduce risk and uncertainty for both international and domestic developers by providing centralized and accessible information, as well as clearly signaling the state’s resolve and intentions to be a dedicated partner in nuclear development.

Bringing the Free Market into Energy

Consumer-regulated electricity (CRE) is an emerging policy that would allow off-grid electricity providers to build their own power plants and transmission lines to serve new customers faster and with less red tape. To be free from Missouri Public Service Commission (MPSC) regulations, CRE providers would need to be unconnected to the regular grid and only serve new, large industrial and commercial customers. These providers would still be subject to federal regulation from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other federal agencies.

CRE could help Missouri meet demand growth, attract investment by companies quickly seeking stable energy, lower costs for utilities and ratepayers, and spur innovation.

To allow CRE, Missouri would need to modify state statute such that new off-grid electricity providers are not subject to monopoly regulation (assuming they are unconnected to existing infrastructure, do not cross state lines, and only serve large customers). New Hampshire moved forward with CRE in 2025. Missouri could do so as well.

Policy Recommendations

• Establish a Missouri Nuclear Advisory Council.
• Through CRE, inject market forces into the energy sector by exempting off-grid electricity providers from MPSC monopoly regulation.

The post Nuclear Energy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Consumer Regulated Electricity and Today’s Economy

CRE would allow off-grid electricity providers to generate, store, transmit, distribute, and sell electricity to new, large customers. They would not be permitted to serve the general public and would still be subject to federal regulations and other rules such as permitting and workplace safety. If a CRE utility (CREU) chooses to interconnect with the regulated grid, it would then cease to be a CREU.

While this might sound like a lot of red tape, it still cuts down on the mountain of regulations and permissions for utilities on the regulated grid that serves the general public. CRE enables innovative, profit-driven entrepreneurs to serve energy-hungry clients building things like data centers.

For example, CRE could allow a new aluminum smelting facility that needs a consistent, high-power energy supply to partner with a CREU specializing in small-modular reactors (SMR). Such a partnership would give the aluminum facility a reliable power source tailored to its needs, with a payment structure negotiated privately between both parties. The aluminum facility could even use industrial heat from the SMR for its own high-intensity manufacturing processes.

Another benefit of CRE is increased flexibility. The energy sector is rapidly changing. Forecasting future demand is difficult even under stable conditions, but today’s landscape makes accurate prediction even more challenging.

Consider artificial intelligence. Many projections warn of an immense spike in electricity demand from data centers needed to power artificial intelligence, while others suggest innovation could make these systems far more efficient. Either way, relying on regulators alone to anticipate these trends and build capacity accordingly is risky for ratepayers who need electricity but also end up paying for new construction.

Free-market mechanisms like CRE would distribute that risk. If demand rises sharply, CRE utilities could more quickly deploy new generation to meet some of it, easing pressure on the regulated grid and diminishing rate hikes. If demand falls short, the CREUs and their customers would be responsible for the financial cost of overbuilding, not captive ratepayers.

Illinois’s willingness to explore CRE shows a growing recognition that the traditional utility model may not be the best way handle modern energy challenges. Allowing CRE in Missouri could attract investment, foster innovation, and relieve stress on the regulated grid and ratepayers. This is a policy Missouri should consider.

The post Illinois Explores Free-Market Energy Policy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The data center discussion is highly nuanced, marked by an interesting mix of not-in-my-backyardism and yes-in-my-backyardism.

This debate has touched down in Platte County in the Kansas City area, where “Project Kestrel” would grant substantial property and sales tax subsidies to support the development of a new, $100 billion data center campus. But is this the right move for Platte County, or for Missouri?

Missouri is in need of investment, and artificial intelligence and associated data centers already play a significant role in our economy.

However, economic development subsidies enrich individual developers at the expense of taxpayers, schools, and other public services. Using tax subsidies to lure data centers, filmmakers, sports teams, and others into Missouri shrinks the tax base of the region without leading to meaningful economic growth. Opportunity costs are largely ignored, with estimates for economic “boosts” not taking into account what the millions given away in subsidies could have achieved if invested in infrastructure, public safety, education, or tax rebates for Missourians.

Looking at electricity, data centers are enormous consumers that are prompting the buildout of new generation facilities. On a regulated grid, such as Evergy’s in the Kansas City area, building new generation and associated transmission is one of the most expensive processes for average ratepayers, because monopoly utilities are allowed to recoup the cost of their capital investments and typically earn a government-approved profit.

Now, it is true that average Missourians use artificial intelligence, indirectly driving the increased demand for data centers. It is also true that we currently cannot predict with certainty the amount of electricity artificial intelligence and data centers will ultimately require.

In April 2024, Goldman Sachs forecast that data centers would rise from 2.5 percent to 8 percent of all U.S. electricity usage by 2030. However, Google recently reported a 33-fold reduction in energy usage for AI queries in a single year.

Some legislation has been passed in an attempt to shield average Missourians from bearing “unjust or unreasonable” costs of powering new data centers. However, this does not mean that none of the burden of new power-plant construction will fall on average ratepayers. Furthermore, if utilities overbuild generation capacity based on overly aggressive demand projections, average ratepayers could find themselves footing the bill for underused assets.

Yet, there is risk in veering too far in the other direction as well: An underbuild of new generation would likely lead to Missouri missing out on significant investment.

To navigate this dilemma, policymakers in Missouri should think outside of the box. Instead of solely considering solutions inside the regulated, ratepayer-supported grid, Missouri should follow New Hampshire’s example and consider consumer regulated electricity (CRE). The idea is simple: huge customers like data centers are driving up electricity demand and putting strain on the grid and ratepayers. CRE would allow off-grid electricity providers to build and operate generation and transmission facilities whose output would be sold exclusively to these new customers. This approach would help shield Missouri ratepayers from both the rate hikes that would otherwise come with new plant construction and the risk of overbuild. CRE would also provide developers with speed, flexibility, and certainty—attractive qualities that are often lost to red tape and lengthy regulatory approval processes.

Adopting CRE could help ease tensions in Platte County and across the state. Of course, the pressure to offer tax subsidies would remain, but this problem is not exclusive to data center development. Corporate handouts are not the way to encourage economic growth. Instead of trying to lure businesses with subsidies, Missouri should have a free market–oriented economic and regulatory environment; for example, one that is conducive to polices like CRE.

The post Data Centers, Subsidies, and Electricity in Platte County and across Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While I will avoid any spoilers, the new movie, Mission Impossible: The Final Reckoning, has an eerie resemblance to current events. The seventh and eighth films in the franchise revolve around a rogue artificial intelligence (AI) entity taking over cyberspace, with different nations racing against the clock to capture this entity and dominate the rest of the globe. The plot today may be different, but the emerging battle for AI-supremacy seems similar.

Recently, President Trump issued four executive orders aimed at unleashing nuclear energy to establish America’s “energy dominance” and maintain national security amid a potential global AI arms race. These orders could lead to the repeal or reform of burdensome regulations that have constrained the American nuclear industry in past decades. Did I expect national security to be a key driver of nuclear energy reform? Not exactly, but this is not an unprecedented scenario.

From the Battlefield to the Home Front

At the height of World War II, nations began working to apply atomic physics to wartime technology. This led to America achieving the world’s first self-sustaining nuclear reaction under the stands of Stagg Field in Chicago. While nuclear technology’s first use was in the atom bomb, its debut as an energy source came soon after with the launch of the USS Nautilus in 1954.

Since then, the technology has had a prominent role in both military and civilian affairs. Nuclear reactors are used to power submarines and aircraft carriers, and 19 percent of the United States’ electricity generation comes from nuclear power plants. National security had a role in its origin story—and now, it may be a factor in the nuclear industry’s resurgence as well.

An Opportunity for Missouri

To win an AI arms race, speed and time are of the essence. Missouri could position itself as a strategic partner by finding ways to more quickly connect new nuclear power to energy-intensive AI data centers.

One policy that could shorten the time of construction of nuclear power plants and also protect Missouri consumers from price hikes is consumer regulated electricity (CRE).

In theory, CRE would allow private investors to create new, independent electric power systems (encompassing both generation and transmission) using their own capital. These private grids would be scaled to meet new demand growth from large consumers. In order for a CRE entity to operate appropriately, it would need to be free from restrictions placed by the Missouri Public Service Commission (MPSC). That means CRE systems would need to be unconnected to the regular grid and serve only new industrial and large commercial customers—like AI data centers.

CRE could not only attract investment but also relieve strain on the primary grid and ratepayers. Rather than relying on ratepayers to fund new power plants to accommodate rising electricity demand (driven by large consumers), CRE could provide a targeted solution. New Hampshire passed a CRE measure this year, and Missouri may benefit from evaluating how its statutes could be amended to allow for such innovation.

By connecting it directly with national security, the Trump administration has made the development of nuclear-energy infrastructure an urgent priority. The mission for Missouri—if our policymakers choose to accept it—is to position the state to take part in the revitalization of nuclear power and reap the accompanying economic benefits. Adopting CRE is one important way in which Missouri could help meet the nation’s needs while benefiting in the process.

The post Mission Impossible and Nuclear Energy: President Trump’s New Executive Orders appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Today, many Missourians receive electricity from state-approved monopoly utilities, which own and manage the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity for their customers within exclusive service territories. Transitioning to a retail competition system would shift the ownership of generation from state-approved monopolies to private entities competing to sell power, while transmission and distribution would remain under utility control.

Responding to Change

The energy sector is in a state of flux, with several critical uncertainties lingering:

• How accurate are current energy demand forecasts?
• Will technological advancements from artificial intelligence significantly reduce energy consumption, and if so, how soon?
• What is the trajectory of electric vehicle adoption?
• How will the Trump administration’s regulatory reforms, such as recent changes at the Environment Protection Agency (EPA), impact the coal industry?
• Will the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) enact needed reform?

These unknowns highlight the challenges of relying on a regulated monopoly model, where long-term infrastructure planning is guided by government oversight rather than market signals. Competitive markets, on the other hand, offer greater adaptability. For example, the rise of hydraulic fracturing led to significantly lower natural gas prices over the last decade. Customers in competitive markets experienced the benefits of low gas prices sooner than customers in monopoly markets did.

Additionally, in a competitive market, private suppliers, not ratepayers, bear more financial risk of failed energy investments. If there is a significant cost overrun or if a project fails to come online, customers have less exposure as they can switch to another supplier or remain insulated through competitively priced default service (if they do not select a supplier).

Further Considerations

Despite the benefits of retail competition at the state level, other free-market reforms are needed. Energy regulation is complex, with overlapping layers of subsidies, taxes, and federal mandates distorting market forces. A truly free and competitive energy market would require broader regulatory reforms at the federal level to ensure private developers can better respond to market demand.

Another key consideration is the role of incumbent utilities in a competitive system. House Bill 417 requires utilities to divest their generation assets before retail choice begins, but it grants them discretion in how they do so. Utilities like Ameren could choose to sell their power plants to unaffiliated private developers or transfer them to a newly formed competitive affiliate, as long as the transaction occurs at fair market value and receives commission. As Missouri considers this transition, it will be important to define the appropriate role of former monopolies in a newly competitive market.

Retail competition is not a silver bullet, but it could introduce market forces to a historically insulated energy sector. Missouri policymakers ought to consider how implementing retail competition might work, and what potential barriers exist at both the state and federal levels.

The post Retail Competition in the Energy Market appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• “Microsoft deal would reopen Three Mile Island nuclear plant to power AI”
• “Amazon goes nuclear, to invest more than $500 million to develop small modular reactors”
• “Amazon and Google have plans for fueling their data centers: Nuclear power”
• “Oracle will use three small nuclear reactors to power new 1-gigawatt AI data center”

Why are some of the largest corporations, who are the biggest consumers of energy, trying to get nuclear plants up and running?

In my view, energy security—access to sufficient, affordable, and reliable energy—is the key motivator. These corporations likely foresee potential shortfalls in energy supply, particularly for sources that can meet demand at any time.

As these headlines show, corporations are even willing to go “behind-the-meter” in order to have access to clean, reliable, and consistent nuclear power. Behind-the-meter refers to the practice of purchasing power directly from a plant, bypassing tradition utility infrastructure. For Missouri, these national trends again highlight the need to seriously consider nuclear power as a solution to building a reliable grid for the future.

What Big Tech is Saying about Energy

A strong and reliable electric grid is vital. Demand for electricity is growing because of data centers, artificial intelligence, electrical manufacturing, and electric vehicles. More than ever, citizens rely on energy to power their daily lives.

Michael Terrell, senior director for energy and climate at Google, said this:

We feel like nuclear can play an important role in helping to meet our demand, and helping meet our demand cleanly, in a way that’s more around the clock.

When major corporations, whose profits depend on uninterrupted power, express concern about future electricity demand, it is worth paying attention.

A Warning Sign for Missouri

Missouri is not doomed, but if you see a bear running away from something in the woods, it is wise to at least consider why it is running. Big Tech’s movement toward nuclear may be a similar warning signal.

Missouri needs to be prepared for an immense energy transition. Amending the Construction Works in Progress (CWIP) law is one way forward. This would open the door for nuclear construction by allowing utilities to gradually recover costs during construction as opposed to all at once afterwards. Investing in more nuclear power is an investment in a strong, reliable power source that we will need as energy demands continue to increase.

The post What to Make of Big Tech’s Pivot to Nuclear appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri cannot keep putting off energy reform until the next year—change is happening now, and energy demand is growing.

For the first two decades of the 2000s, electricity consumption remained flat without significant growth, as increased demand was offset by increased energy efficiency. However, in recent years energy demand has been on the rise again.

Forbes, the Department of Energy, and The New York Times all note the same driving forces for this increasing demand—data center growth (accelerated by the growth of AI) and a boom in electrical manufacturing (batteries, computer chips, etc.). What is one thing data centers and factories have in common? They both require power 24 hours a day—something non-dispatchable resources like solar cannot effectively provide alone. (Small modular nuclear reactors are great at providing continuous power . . . just saying.)

Some prominent organizations, such as Goldman Sachs and McKinsey & Company, have forecasted that U.S. data center energy usage will double by 2030. To put it into perspective, Goldman forecasts that data centers’ share of total U.S. power demand will rise from its current 3% level to 8% by 2030. This is an enormous amount of electricity—equivalent to the power needed for over 40 million U.S. homes.

Ameren is planning to shut down all coal plants by 2045. To replace coal plants’ production and meet new demand, our state will need to build reliable, powerful, and clean power plants.

Nuclear power can check all of these boxes, but we need regulatory reform to allow nuclear to flourish in Missouri. To replace and meet new energy demand, our state should strongly consider nuclear energy.

The primary policy that has impeded our nuclear industry for decades is the construction-works-in-progress (CWIP) law. This statute prevents utilities from raising rates in order to help pay for construction-works-in-progress, making it much more difficult to develop nuclear projects. CWIP has proven fatal for Missouri’s nuclear industry, as nuclear projects are both extremely capital intensive and subject to extensive holdups in the regulatory process.

Nuclear plants do not arise out of thin air, and they will not be built in Missouri if there are too many regulatory barriers. Eliminating the longstanding CWIP statute by passing HB 1435 and HB 1804 would provide a backstop for the large upfront costs of small modular reactor construction so that utilities can work with both domestic and international nuclear developers to revive our state’s nuclear industry.

In the remaining weeks of the session, the legislature cannot forget about the need for modernization in the energy sector. Electricity demand is on the rise, and Missouri should prepare to meet this demand.

The post Missouri Needs to Be Prepared for Growing Energy Demand appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

James Pethokoukis, a columnist and an economic policy analyst, is the Dewitt Wallace Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he writes and edits the AEIdeas blog and hosts a weekly podcast, “Political Economy with James Pethokoukis.” He is also a columnist for The Week and an official contributor to CNBC.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Stitcher 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post The Promise of ChatGPT with James Pethokoukis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.