After several months, we’re pleased to have Olivia Marble back on the podcast to discuss data centers and Delaware’s energy market. A lot has happened on that front in recent months.
Olivia recently wrote an article summarizing the Delaware General Assembly’s efforts this year to legislate around data centers and energy. We’ll talk about that, as well as how the governor and Delaware’s counties are wrestling with these issues.
This conversation transcript has been edited for clarity and concision. The audio podcast is unedited.
Let’s start at the beginning. We hired you as Spotlight’s land use reporter, but almost immediately you also became our in-house expert on data centers and energy. What was that experience like?
I don’t think it was day one—I think it was day three that I published my first article about data centers.
But it made sense that I would focus on them. Land use is a broad beat that covers how we shape the land around us. I spend a lot of time reporting on how local governments plan for future development, what developers propose to build, and what ultimately gets built.
Data centers fit neatly into that because they’re often massive industrial developments that can significantly shape communities. Infrastructure also became a natural secondary focus because these facilities require roads, water, and large amounts of electricity.
I hadn’t spent much time covering electric infrastructure before, though, so that has been the biggest learning curve. It’s still one of the most challenging parts of my reporting because our energy system is incredibly complex. There are multiple layers of governance, technical issues, and scientific concepts to understand.
At the same time, it’s been fascinating to learn how the electricity system actually works. Most of us take for granted that the lights come on when we flip a switch, but there’s an enormous amount happening behind the scenes.
That’s absolutely true. Spotlight aims to be a community-responsive news organization, and data centers and energy have clearly been top-of-mind issues for Delawareans over the past year or two.
Why do you think these topics have become so important?
I think it starts with artificial intelligence. Data centers have always powered the internet, but we’re hearing much more about them now because AI requires far more computing power than previous technologies.
As AI has grown, data centers have become much larger and consume dramatically more electricity. That has forced governments and utilities to rethink how they plan energy infrastructure.
AI is often discussed as something that could fundamentally transform society, but it’s also something that feels abstract. People use it in different ways, and they have very little control over how it develops.
What they can influence, however, is whether a data center gets built in their community.
The other major factor is affordability. Many Delawareans are already struggling with inflation, higher utility bills, and rising living costs. Data centers have raised concerns because they could increase electricity prices.
Developers argue that they’ll pay the full cost of the electricity they consume, but independent analyses have found that if all 2.4 gigawatts of proposed data centers were built in Delaware without adding new power generation, wholesale electricity prices could increase by as much as 80%.
That’s a significant concern.
That’s a pretty shocking number.
It is.
In some ways, the debate becomes a referendum on AI itself. If you’re optimistic about AI, you may welcome more data center development. If you’re skeptical, you may be much less enthusiastic.
Interestingly, I’ve talked with plenty of people who use AI every day and still don’t want a data center in their backyard.
It reminds me of warehouse development, which I covered extensively in my previous job. Warehousing expanded rapidly after the pandemic because of e-commerce. People would stand up during public hearings and say, “I order everything from Amazon, but I don’t want an Amazon warehouse next to my neighborhood.”
Those concerns — traffic, pollution, noise — were legitimate.
The same thing applies here. If you use AI, data centers are part of the infrastructure that makes it possible. But that doesn’t mean you lose the right to ask questions about how those facilities will affect your community.
Exactly. There’s room for legitimate public concern.
That leads us to how Delaware’s leaders have responded. The General Assembly is supposed to be responsive to community concerns, and lawmakers were quite active this year on legislation involving data centers and energy.
Of those bills, which do you think will have the greatest impact on Delawareans?
I’m obviously not an industry expert, but based on everything I’ve reported over the past year, I think House Bill 445 could be the most significant—assuming it’s implemented effectively.
Tell me about that bill.
The bill requires new data centers to either provide their own power supply or fund new power generation to support their operations.
The original version required that new power generation be located in Delaware. I thought that would be extremely difficult. In fact, I wondered whether it would effectively amount to a moratorium on new data centers because building new energy infrastructure is slow everywhere, especially in Delaware.
For example, onshore wind farms aren’t really feasible here, and a portion of the required energy would have to come from renewable sources. I genuinely questioned whether the bill was even workable.
Another key provision is that data centers would have to provide 100% of their required power generation within 10 years of beginning operations.
So they get a little time to ramp up.
Right, but the expectation is still clear: if you’re bringing a major new electricity demand to Delaware, you’re also expected to bring the power needed to support it.
After the bill was amended, though, it became much more practical. Instead of requiring all new generation to be built in Delaware, it allows projects in neighboring states. It also broadens the definition of “new power generation.”
For example, investing in upgrades that increase the capacity of existing power plants counts toward that requirement. From a permitting and construction standpoint, that’s much more realistic than trying to build an entirely new nuclear plant or another large generating facility from scratch.
I still think the bill could have a major impact because it directly addresses what the state’s Public Advocate has consistently identified as the biggest issue: Delaware doesn’t have enough electricity supply to meet future demand.
The goal is to avoid a classic supply-and-demand imbalance. If you dramatically increase demand without increasing supply, prices go up.
That’s essentially the situation we’ve been facing.
There hasn’t been enough new generation coming online to replace retiring plants while also meeting increased demand—particularly from data centers, which consume many times more electricity than a typical household.
So we need additional generating capacity.
When people debate whether that generation has to be in Delaware or somewhere else, it’s important to remember that we’re part of a larger regional electric grid—the PJM Interconnection.
Exactly.
The system is complicated, but because we’re all connected through PJM, additional generation in Maryland or New Jersey can still benefit Delaware.
That said, location does matter because of transmission congestion.
Right now, much of southern Delaware receives electricity generated farther north. If demand increases dramatically, those transmission lines can become congested. My understanding is that congestion results in energy losses and higher costs, which can ultimately raise electricity prices.
So while any new generation on the PJM grid helps, generation located closer to where it’s needed is generally more beneficial.
And that’s why the final version of the bill allows developers to build that new generation outside Delaware, as long as it’s in neighboring states.
That’s right.
Building generation closer to where the electricity will be used is always the most efficient approach. It reduces congestion and helps limit future increases in electricity costs.
Three major energy bills ultimately passed on the final night of the legislative session.
I’d like to talk a little about your reporting process because this was actually your first time covering the final night of the General Assembly.
What was your overall impression of how the legislature operates during those final hours?
My first day at Spotlight last year was July 14, so I missed the end of the previous legislative session. This was my first experience covering the closing night.
It was chaotic.
There were a huge number of bills that lawmakers were trying to move before adjournment. I didn’t even stay until the end—I finally left around 3 a.m.—and the session continued well beyond that.
Despite the chaos, there was also a sense that everyone was in it together.
The legislators, legislative staff, and reporters all knew it was going to be a long night. People helped each other out more than usual because everyone was trying to get through the same marathon.
That’s definitely the atmosphere.
You have long floor sessions where lawmakers debate and vote on bills, but you also have lengthy caucus meetings where each party disappears behind closed doors to negotiate.
As a reporter, how do you approach covering a night like that? Who are you talking to, and what are you trying to learn?
My assignment that night was very focused. I only needed to cover the three data center bills.
My job was to determine whether they were going to pass. If they didn’t, I needed to understand why. If they did, I wanted to know what negotiations made that possible.
So I spent the night talking to lawmakers, texting sources, and asking everyone I could, “What are you hearing?”
Whenever there was a break between caucuses and floor sessions, I’d run up to legislators and ask, “What can we expect? What happened in the meeting?”
I actually wrote two versions of my story.
One assumed the bills would pass. The other assumed they wouldn’t.
Right before the session, one source told me the bills were dead. Minutes later, someone else said they were definitely passing.
The information was so contradictory that it was faster to prepare both versions and be ready for whichever outcome happened.
That’s exactly what deadline reporting often requires.
Our morning newsletter goes out at 9 a.m., and I don’t think the legislature finally adjourned until around 5 a.m.
Having the background, interviews, and analysis already written is really the only way you have any chance of getting a few hours of sleep before publication.
Exactly.
One bill in particular, Senate Bill 326, appeared to be in a pretty tenuous position the night before the final day of session. This is the bill that caps the amount of infrastructure spending Delmarva Power can pass on to customers.
An amendment introduced in the House would have removed that cap and instead required only a 25% reduction. House Majority Leader Kerri Evelyn Harris said the original bill didn’t have enough votes to advance out of committee. Yet on the final night of session, the amendment failed, the original bill advanced, and it ultimately passed by a wide margin. What happened?
From my understanding, several committee members had significant concerns about the cap itself.
Delmarva Power was lobbying heavily against the original bill. Company representatives argued that the investments being capped are technically classified as “non-mandatory” infrastructure upgrades, but they maintained those projects are essential to maintaining the long-term reliability of the electric grid.
My understanding is that the amendment was largely a political compromise designed to move the bill out of committee and onto the House floor. Once it reached the full House, however, a majority of lawmakers decided they preferred the original version.
Governor Matt Meyer also gave the bill momentum. On the final day of the legislative session, he publicly endorsed Senate Bill 326 without the amendment. At that point, it appeared some of the committee members who had originally opposed the bill recognized where the votes were headed and ultimately supported the original language.
What’s interesting is that the support was bipartisan. This wasn’t simply Democrats versus Republicans. Lawmakers from both parties were concerned about affordability for their constituents, and the bill ultimately passed by comfortable margins.
It also had bipartisan opposition.
The committee members who expressed concerns weren’t exclusively Republicans. Some Democrats shared those concerns as well.
Those concerns centered on whether limiting Delmarva Power’s ability to recover certain infrastructure costs could discourage future investment in the electric grid, potentially affecting long-term reliability. That’s a legitimate concern.
Exactly.
People dislike high electric bills, but they dislike losing power even more. Legislators were trying to balance those competing priorities.
Deputy Editor Karl Baker mentioned that he was somewhat surprised these energy and data center bills ultimately passed. He thought lawmakers might be more cautious during an election year. Were you surprised?
I was surprised by how little opposition House Bill 445 ultimately faced because I think it’s a very significant piece of legislation.
That said, I’m less surprised after the amendments. Giving developers more flexibility in how they provide new power generation—and where that generation can be located—made the bill much easier to support. Without those changes, I think the debate would have been much more contentious.
I was actually more surprised that House Bill 233 generated as much opposition as it did.
From my reading, it didn’t seem as consequential. It primarily requires the Public Service Commission to negotiate service agreements with large data centers.
To me, it didn’t appear to have the same long-term impact as House Bill 445.
Do you think that was simply because it was the first data center bill to come before the Senate?
Exactly.
Once lawmakers realized the first bill was moving, it became the vehicle for the broader debate about data centers.
Rather than arguing over the specific provisions of House Bill 233, many senators used that discussion to express their broader opinions about the role data centers should play in Delaware.
There’s activity on these issues outside Legislative Hall as well. The Public Service Commission recently approved only part of Delmarva Power’s latest rate increase request.
Your reporting highlighted the commission’s four newest members, all appointed by Governor Matt Meyer. You wrote that the vote “shows a shift in the body’s public rhetoric.” Tell me more about that. What’s changed, and why does it matter?
I’ll be honest—that observation really came from Karl Baker, our deputy editor.
I’ve only been covering Delaware for about a year. While I’ve followed the Public Service Commission closely during that time, I wasn’t comfortable saying on my own that this represented a significant change. So I asked Karl whether he’d seen anything like it during his decade of reporting in Delaware.
He said he hadn’t.
His view was that, historically, the commission has generally deferred to Delmarva Power’s interpretation of what it can and can’t do. Of course, commissioners consult their own attorneys, but they’ve traditionally been more cautious about making decisions that might invite legal challenges from the utility.
One moment that really stood out came during a recent commission meeting.
A Delmarva Power attorney objected to the commission’s actions, and one of the commissioners responded, “If you don’t like it, appeal it.”
That struck me as unusually direct—almost combative—and Karl felt the same way. It wasn’t the tone either of us had typically seen from the commission.
I would agree. It feels like a departure from the status quo, and we’re seeing similar shifts across the region.
Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro has taken aggressive action over energy costs. Maryland Governor Wes Moore has done the same. Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger is also putting greater pressure on utilities. There seems to be a broader movement toward holding electric utilities more accountable, and Governor Meyer appears to be taking a similar approach in Delaware.
What have you noticed from the governor’s office?
So far, he’s primarily been using what reporters often call the “bully pulpit.”
He’s been publicly advocating for specific legislation rather than relying heavily on executive orders or other executive actions.
For example, he publicly supported several of the energy bills before the General Assembly and urged lawmakers to pass them.
He’s also used unusually strong language when discussing Delmarva Power.
At one recent press conference, he accused the company of “lying” about the Public Service Commission’s authority. Specifically, Delmarva Power argued that the commission lacked the legal authority to approve only part of its requested rate increase.
Governor Meyer rejected that argument outright, calling it false.
That’s unusually forceful language from a governor.
I’m curious to see what comes next. Will he continue relying primarily on public pressure, or will we see more direct executive action?
That said, it’s worth noting that he already took one significant action by appointing the four new Public Service Commission members who have adopted a more assertive posture toward Delmarva Power.
That’s a good point. His appointments may ultimately prove to be one of the most consequential actions he’s taken on this issue.
It also feels increasingly likely that some of these disputes will eventually end up in court.
Absolutely.
We’ve spent a lot of time talking about state legislation, but these debates are also playing out at the local level. Earlier this year, New Castle County Council adopted the state’s first data center regulations. By the time this podcast is released, Kent County Levy Court will have held a hearing on its own proposed regulations.
What will you be watching most closely?
I’m particularly interested in Kent County’s proposed noise standards and setback requirements.
The draft ordinance would limit noise at industrial property lines to 55 decibels. That’s relatively quiet, but much of Kent County is extremely rural, where ambient noise levels are often much lower than that.
I’m interested to see whether residents feel that standard adequately protects the character of those communities.
The proposed 300-foot buffer also caught my attention.
That’s substantially smaller than the 1,000-foot setback adopted by New Castle County, so I’m curious whether residents will argue for greater separation between data centers and neighboring properties.
Another issue is that the proposed regulations would classify data centers as a permitted use within industrial zoning districts.
That means qualifying projects could move forward without an additional public hearing where a board has discretion to approve or deny the proposal.
The counterargument, which I’ve heard from Levy Court members, is that even discretionary approvals are generally expected to follow the zoning code if an application meets all legal requirements.
Still, I think many residents may be uncomfortable with removing that additional layer of public review.
And practically speaking, it also means the public loses an opportunity to directly question developers before a project moves forward.
Exactly.
People can still participate when zoning regulations are written or amended, but once a project is permitted by right, there generally isn’t another public hearing where residents can challenge the proposal itself.
That could become one of the more controversial aspects of the regulations.
I’m curious. There’s been so much attention on an industry that, at least so far, doesn’t have a major operating project in Delaware. There are a few legacy data centers, but nothing on the scale that’s being proposed.
What does it say that so much attention is focused on what could happen rather than what’s already here?
Honestly, I think New Castle County Council would have preferred to address this issue even earlier.
By the time it adopted its regulations, there were already several data center proposals with pending applications. That created a debate over whether the new rules should apply to those projects. Ultimately, county officials decided they would not.
That’s one reason I give Kent County credit for tackling the issue before any major applications have been submitted.
Planning ahead is exactly when governments should be thinking about regulations. It’s much easier to establish clear expectations before projects are proposed than after developers have already entered the approval process.
New Castle County found itself trying to write rules while at least four major applications were already pending. That’s a much more difficult position to be in.
I think Kent County is taking the smarter approach by deciding what its standards should be before it has to evaluate a specific project.
Has Sussex County shown any indication that it’s considering similar regulations?
Not that I’ve seen.
I’ve heard some informal conversations about whether the county should do something, but nothing concrete.
One factor may be the Delaware Electric Cooperative, which serves much of Sussex County.
One of the bills passed this year gives the cooperative greater authority to deny data center proposals outright. Because it’s a member-owned cooperative, its situation is different from Delmarva Power’s.
One concern the cooperative’s leadership raised with me was that a single large data center could consume as much electricity as all of its existing members combined.
Under the cooperative’s governance structure, that could theoretically make one customer the majority stakeholder in the organization.
That’s obviously not how a cooperative is intended to function.
So perhaps that’s one reason Sussex County hasn’t felt the same urgency to adopt local regulations.
Still, if I were advising the county, I’d encourage it to establish rules now.
There’s very little downside to being prepared.
If the AI revolution develops the way many people in Silicon Valley predict, demand for data centers could continue to grow dramatically.
Of course, technology also tends to become more efficient over time. Future data centers may require less land or consume less electricity than today’s facilities.
We simply don’t know.
But I don’t think it’s ever a bad idea to prepare for multiple possibilities.
Finally, you were instrumental in organizing Spotlight Delaware’s “Spotlight on Data Centers” event this spring. The event brought together legislators, public officials, and industry experts from Delaware and other states to discuss what Delaware can learn from their experiences.
You also moderated several of those panel discussions. How does organizing an event like that improve your reporting?
The biggest benefit was building relationships.
Inviting someone to participate on a panel is different from calling them for a quick interview. Even with people I’d spoken to before, I was asking them to spend an hour having a public conversation with me in front of an audience.
That creates a different kind of relationship.
It was also incredibly valuable to hear questions directly from audience members.
People are always welcome to email me, and I encourage them to do that. But there’s something different about hearing those questions in real time while the experts are sitting right there on stage.
It’s much harder for panelists to dodge a question when it’s coming directly from someone in the audience.
That interaction helped me better understand what people are most concerned about and what questions still need to be answered in my reporting.
Thank you for sharing both your reporting process and your insights into one of Delaware’s most important emerging issues. You’ve done a tremendous job helping readers understand not just data centers, but the broader questions surrounding energy, affordability, and how Delaware is preparing for the future.
Thanks so much for joining us.
Thank you.
