This is such an obvious concern that it's hard to understand how the GP didn't think of it as well. Clearly, people don't always consider all the things and get focused in so they can't see the forest for the trees.
>It also doesn't necessarily matter if the data centers actually raise electricity rates.
>Regardless of whether or not they do, you can block their construction and try to horse-trade it for relief on energy prices.
So in other words burn the credibility and reputation of whatever you're using for that purpose so you can pull a quick "fuck you got mine" to the tune of several cents per kwh off your bill.
That sort of policy making is not sustainable and is exactly the sort of selfish shortsighted thinking that birthed the current political climate.
Edit: At leas you're honest about it. The usual peddlers of such stuff are in denial about what they're doing so they can't be made to understand the tradeoffs.
As I see it, the AI companies are the ones that started the "fuck you got mine" defense. Look at how they obtained their data to train their models. Look at how they've gone about building their data centers. It's yet another example of how tech companies hurry up to get established with no regards for anything other than getting to a point of being too big to stop.
Things really started breaking down between government and big business and everyone started thinking short term at least as far back as the 1970s IMO.
If communities wait until there is incontrovertible proof of raised rates, everything will have been decided and their raised rates will be a fait accompli. This is the time and phase to raise concerns and get guarantees in place for communities