To amend section 163.01 and to enact sections 9.71, 9.711, and 4933.71 of the Revised Code to prohibit public support for, and limit the construction of, new data centers.
HB710 would restrict state and local support for newly proposed data centers in Ohio and impose new siting and utility-service limits on those facilities. The bill defines a “new data center” as a facility dedicated to housing computer systems and related equipment where construction has not yet begun and no final local zoning or land-use approval has been issued. Under the bill, neither the state nor any political subdivision could award incentives for the construction or operation of a new data center, and any incentive awarded in violation of the prohibition would have to be refunded under procedures adopted by the awarding entity.
The bill also bars new data centers from being built on prime farmland, public land, or land in a platted residential neighborhood, with a narrow exception for prime farmland if the land is voluntarily sold and the county commissioners approve the project by resolution. In addition, HB710 would amend Ohio’s eminent-domain law so that taking property for use as a new data center would not qualify as a “public use,” limiting the ability of public agencies to use condemnation for these projects. Finally, the bill would require the Public Utilities Commission to block approval, permitting, or interconnection for a new data center unless the developer shows the project will not raise electricity rates for residential, agricultural, or small business customers, and it would require the developer to bear all related power-system costs or provide financial assurances.
The bill’s impact would be significant for state and local economic development policy, land-use decisions, utility regulation, and property-rights law. It would remove access to a broad range of public incentives for new data centers, constrain where they may be built, and add a ratepayer-protection standard before utility service can be provided. It would also narrow the scope of “public use” under Ohio’s appropriation statutes by expressly excluding takings for new data centers, affecting both public agencies and private developers seeking land for these projects.
Because the bill was only introduced and no committee testimony or votes are provided, there is no recorded legislative sentiment in the materials beyond the bill’s clear policy direction. The text itself reflects a skeptical or restrictive view of data center expansion, emphasizing protection of farmland, neighborhoods, public land, and utility customers. The absence of committee discussion means there is no documented support or opposition from stakeholders in the provided record.
The main points of contention likely would be whether data centers should receive public incentives, whether they should be allowed on prime farmland or other sensitive land, and whether developers should be required to fully isolate their electric costs from other customers. The eminent-domain restriction could also be controversial because it limits government acquisition authority for projects tied to private commercial development. Likely supporters would include farmland preservation advocates, neighborhood groups, and ratepayer advocates, while likely opponents would include data center developers, economic development interests, and some local governments seeking investment and tax base growth.
HB710 would add new restrictions to Ohio law governing economic development incentives, land use, eminent domain, and utility approval for data centers. It would prohibit state and local incentives for new data centers, bar construction on prime farmland, public land, and platted residential neighborhoods except in limited circumstances, and amend Ohio’s appropriation law to exclude takings for new data centers from the definition of public use. It would also require the Public Utilities Commission to ensure that new data centers do not shift electricity costs to residential, agricultural, or small business customers, with developers responsible for related system costs and financial assurances.
The bill appears generally restrictive toward new data center development and is framed to protect farmland, neighborhoods, public land, and utility ratepayers. Because there are no committee transcripts or votes in the provided record, there is no documented legislative debate or recorded sentiment from lawmakers. Based on the text alone, the measure reflects a precautionary and skeptical stance toward public support for data centers rather than an expansionary economic-development approach.
Likely contention centers on three issues: first, the ban on public incentives for new data centers, which could be opposed by economic development officials and developers who view incentives as necessary to attract investment; second, the land-use limits, especially the restriction on prime farmland and public land, which supporters would see as preservation measures but opponents may view as overly rigid; and third, the utility-cost provisions, which would require developers to prove they will not raise rates for other customers and to bear all associated system costs. The eminent-domain change is also likely to be controversial because it removes data centers from the category of public use, limiting condemnation authority for these projects.