Originally published on Substack. 

The loudest voices attacking data centers today are the same ones who’ve ignored America’s crumbling electric grid for decades. Conveniently, they’ve found a shiny distraction: AI, cloud computing, and high-density data centers.

But the truth—confirmed by federal research, independent analysts, and basic economics—is that data centers are not driving higher electricity prices. Government-owned and government-regulated utilities are.

If policymakers spent half as much time fixing their own failures as they spend blaming innovators, Americans would already have lower bills.

This isn’t a tech problem. It’s a government problem.
​
And until we acknowledge that reality, electricity prices will continue rising no matter how many data centers get built—or blocked.

​Data Centers Are Now Core Infrastructure

The modern economy runs on data centers just like past generations ran on railroads and highways. Without advanced compute power, entire industries—from health care and defense to logistics and manufacturing—grind to a halt.

The Wall Street Journal calls this boom a “gold rush” for construction workers, with higher wages and massive demand for skilled labor as the industry faces a shortage of nearly 439,000 workers. That doesn’t happen in industries declining or draining the economy. It happens in sectors creating real value.

Small towns know this. Fox Business reports that Meta’s facility in Social Circle, Georgia is transforming the local tax base and creating high-paying jobs for families who haven’t seen this kind of opportunity in decades.

These are not burdens—they are engines of prosperity.

Electricity Prices Are Rising Because the Grid is Government-Run, Not Because of Data Centers

Let’s cut through the noise: electricity bills are rising because government-owned and government-regulated utilities have under-invested in infrastructure, mispriced risk, and politicized energy decisions for decades.

Data centers didn’t cause this. But they’re getting the blame. According to PBS, electricity bills rose more than 5% year-over-year, but the causes are far more complex than AI demand.

A major Department of Energy–commissioned report by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and The Brattle Group examined price trends from 2019–2024. The conclusion is devastating for the anti–data center narrative:

Data centers were not a driver of higher electricity prices. Government failures were. Rates increased because of:

• Aging, government-owned grid infrastructure that hasn’t been upgraded
• Extreme weather and wildfire recovery costs the public sector didn’t prepare for
• Volatile natural gas prices because regulators distort markets
• Inflation and supply chain failures tied to bad policy

And here’s the kicker: states with heavy data center growth often saw inflation-adjusted electricity price declines because large, predictable loads help spread fixed costs more efficiently.

Both The Washington Post and Politico reported the same truth: the grid is expensive because we let government run it.

Even Energy Secretary Chris Wright told PoliticoPro that data centers will actually lower prices over time by improving utilization of existing grid assets.

You want lower energy prices? Reform the grid. You want reliability? Privatize it.

Water Use: Data Centers Innovate, Government Doesn’t

Water panic headlines make for great clickbait, but they crumble fast.

Modern facilities increasingly rely on closed-loop cooling, air-cooling systems, and recycled water technologies. Some are moving toward net-positive water practices.

Meanwhile, government-run water systems leak billions of gallons a year because pipes haven’t been replaced in half a century. Yet data centers get the blame? Please.

If the public sector ran its water systems with even half the efficiency of the private sector, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

Privatize Utility Districts—Or Expect Higher Bills Forever

Here’s the uncomfortable truth political leaders won’t say aloud:

America’s grid problems are rooted in government ownership, government regulation, and government distortion—not private innovation.

Public utility districts, municipal utilities, state-controlled grids, and politically run transmission authorities are failing precisely because they are insulated from competition. They misallocate capital, delay maintenance, ignore price signals, and rely on ratepayers to bail out mistakes.

It’s time to say what free-market economists have known for decades: Privatizing utility districts and introducing real competition would do more to cut electricity prices than any government program ever will.

Let private operators price risk correctly. Let them compete on efficiency. Let them build modern transmission lines without political bottlenecks.

Data centers would thrive in this environment—and so would consumers.

Bottom Line

Here’s what the evidence makes undeniable:

• Data centers do not raise electricity prices—government mismanagement does.
• They strengthen the grid and help lower long-run costs.
• They recycle water and outperform public systems in efficiency and stewardship.
• They revitalize local economies with high-wage, stable jobs.
• They are essential infrastructure powering America’s digital and economic future.
• And yes—privatizing utility districts is the reform that could finally deliver abundant, affordable power.

If America wants a competitive future, the path is clear: Build more data centers. Privatize failing government utilities. Let markets work.

Call to Action

If this matters to you—if you’re tired of government mistakes being blamed on the private sector—share this piece. Bring it to policymakers. Start telling the truth about what’s holding America’s grid back.

Originally published on Substack. 

Across classrooms, homes, and hospitals worldwide, artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly reshaping childhood and health. Not in some distant, futuristic way—but right now. This advanced computing is helping children learn to read, teenagers overcome language barriers, parents support their kids’ education, and doctors diagnose and treat patients faster and more accurately. AI is creating customized, affordable tools for learning and care—tools that were once only available to the rich.

And yet, much of the political response in the U.S. and abroad has been marked by one thing: fear.

Instead of welcoming these advances, too many governments are trying to clamp down—regulating AI development before they even understand it. They’re trying to micromanage algorithms instead of holding people accountable for results. That’s backwards.

As The Economist put it in a powerful recent piece, “children are the pioneers—and guinea pigs—of artificial intelligence.” The question isn’t whether they’ll grow up using AI. They already are. The real question is: will we empower families to adapt and thrive—or will we smother progress in red tape?

​Let’s talk about what’s working. Many students and teachers in U.S. high schools are already using AI frequently.

In India, children using Google’s Read Along app were 60% more likely to improve reading than their peers. In Nigeria, students using Microsoft’s Copilot improved their English by the equivalent of two full school years in one. In Taiwan, kids using AI-powered language bots reported significant gains—and found it easier than speaking with real teachers.

And these aren’t one-off experiments. AI is scaling what used to be expensive private tutoring and making it accessible in rural villages, overcrowded classrooms, and multilingual regions.

In Belgium, students use immersive tools to hear lessons in their native tongue while learning Dutch. In China, kids are building neural networks in school as early as elementary grades. Singapore has made AI instruction part of its national curriculum.

That’s not dumbing down education. That’s accelerating it! And yet, the pushback keeps growing.

In the U.S., some school districts have banned or restricted the use of ChatGPT in classrooms. Senators have proposed banning AI chatbot “companions” for children. California tried and failed to pass sweeping AI regulation so vague that it would’ve buried startups in lawsuits. And at the state level, we’re seeing a patchwork of inconsistent, innovation-killing regulation emerge.

Texas just passed the Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA) earlier this year. While better than it started, TRAIGA remains flawed. It still tries to regulate too much of AI development itself—not the outcomes, which are mostly already covered under existing law. TRAIGA’s vague mandates and compliance burdens will grow government, raise direct and indirect costs of innovation, and discourage experimentation, especially for small developers and schools trying to stay ahead.

What lawmakers should consider is regulating harmful behavior, not the underlying tools, and most of these are already regulated. We don’t regulate pencils because students might cheat. We don’t regulate spreadsheets because someone could fudge numbers. We regulate fraud, not formulas.

The same principle should apply to AI.

AI is also making waves in healthcare—offering better diagnostics, reducing administrative overload, and giving patients faster answers. In underserved areas, AI is already functioning as a first line of triage, helping people access care when no doctor is around.

But again, regulators are focused on edge cases and hypotheticals. They’re worried about what AI might do someday, rather than what it is doing right now to improve lives.

The U.S. has a chance to lead with smart policy. But if we let every state build its own AI rules—and most of them are rooted in fear—we risk raising barriers to innovation, increasing costs across the board, and ceding leadership to countries that embrace experimentation.

The better path is clear:

• Focus regulation on outcomes, not abstract development processes.
• Empower families with school choice so they can pick tools that work for them.
• Encourage AI in healthcare by cutting bureaucratic red tape and giving patients more control.
• Protect freedom to innovate—don’t assume that every tool is guilty until proven safe.

AI won’t raise our kids or treat our illnesses alone. But it can make both dramatically better—if we let it.

So let’s not strangle the future in fear. Let’s not hand our competitive edge to countries with central planning. Let’s build a framework that champions human freedom, personal responsibility, and free-market innovation.
​
Let’s Let People Prosper in the age of AI.

​Artificial intelligence isn’t just transforming industries—it’s redefining freedom, opportunity, and the future of human work. This week on the Let People Prosper Show, I talk with Kevin Frazier, the inaugural AI Innovation and Law Fellow at the University of Texas School of Law, where he leads their groundbreaking new AI Innovation and Law Program.
Kevin’s at the center of the national conversation on how to balance innovation with accountability—and how to make sure regulation doesn’t crush the technological progress that drives prosperity. With degrees from UC Berkeley Law, Harvard Kennedy School, and the University of Oregon, Kevin brings both a legal and policy lens to today’s most pressing questions about AI, federalism, and the economy. Before joining UT, he served as an Assistant Professor at St. Thomas University College of Law and conducted research for the Institute for Law and AI. His scholarship has appeared in the Tennessee Law Review, MIT Technology Review, and Lawfare. He also co-hosts the Scaling Laws Podcast, bridging the gap between innovation and regulation.
This episode goes deep into how we can harness AI to promote human flourishing, not government dependency—how we can regulate based on reality, not fear—and how federalism can help America remain the global leader in technological innovation.
For more insights, visit vanceginn.com. You can also get even greater value by subscribing to my Substack newsletter at vanceginn.substack.com. Please share with your friends, family, and broader social media network.