[cloudfudge]

> The consequence of saying they cannot choice to not have them. Is saying your requiring them to have them whether or not the people their want them.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. They are currently not banned in Maine, yet they do not have them. There is obviously no requirement to have them.

[fc417fc802]

Being against a ban is equivalent to requiring that something be allowed. It might or might not end up happening, but either way it is permitted.

[cloudfudge]

"Requiring something be allowed" != "requiring them to have them"

[xphos]

So if companies are actively trying to build them in the state. And your claim is the state has to allow them to be built? Isn't this just a delay requirement to force them to have data center? Sure they aren't build today but if the government cannot stop them at the permit, or at any point after its a requirement to have them. If you want to deny a state that right to decide via democratic processes you are effectively requiring them to build in their state.

How else could states that deny those data centers if they cannot pass legislation to prevent them or require XYZ parameters before they are allowed to be built? Your argument is nonsensical in my opinion especially in context. I get that if you do a string compare they are different sentences but the semantic effects of the two statements are equavalanet in the framing that comapnies are actively trying to permit and build them.