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. Its also a temporary moratorium. Maybe the industry should have been more responsible and not pasted so many externalities on to the public sector if they didnt want to face regulations.
I think the highest parent comment basically hasn't engaged in any of the cost benefit analysis just strawman the subject to banning all industry. They are not doing that and allow other manufacturing to exist maybe the data center business should learn from those industries how to conduct themselves
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.
