Data Centers Become a Campaign Issue in North Carolina's 2026 U.S. Senate Race
As more than 30 North Carolina localities pause new data center projects, Senate candidates Michael Whatley and Roy Cooper take different approaches to the growth of AI facilities.
Two Careful Non-Answers
On July 23, 2026, Spectrum News asked North Carolina's two U.S. Senate candidates a simple question: do you support a federal moratorium on new AI data centers[1]? Neither candidate gave a simple answer.
Republican Michael Whatley said no. The United States can't afford to lose the AI race to China, he argued. But he added a caveat: data centers "should not be a burden to local communities"[1]. Democrat Roy Cooper didn't answer the moratorium question at all. He said only that data centers should "pay their own way"[1].
That kind of hedging usually means the politics are genuinely hard. And in this case, they are. More than 30 North Carolina cities and counties, including Charlotte, Durham, Wilson, Haywood and Chatham, have already passed their own temporary moratoriums on new data centers, without waiting for Washington or Raleigh to act[2]. Local officials say their zoning codes were written before anyone imagined server farms this large, and they need time to write rules for power, water and noise[2].
That local wave is the backdrop for a Senate race that's now, in part, a referendum on how North Carolina handles the AI boom.
The Number Both Sides Point To
Some facts here aren't in dispute. Cooper is a Democrat and former North Carolina governor. Whatley is a Republican and former chairman of the Republican National Committee. They're running for an open seat, one of the most competitive Senate races in the country this cycle[1][10].
Public opinion is measurable, and it isn't warm. An Elon University poll released in April 2026 found just 24% of North Carolinians would support a large data center being built near them. 44% would oppose it. The rest were unsure[4].
In Congress, Senator Bernie Sanders introduced the Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act on March 25, 2026[5]. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez filed a matching House bill on June 24, 2026[6]. The bill would pause large new AI data center construction until Congress passes national safeguards. It has no fixed end date — only a condition that has to be met first[6].
And Duke Energy, the state's largest utility, has put out the number that frames almost every argument in this race. Data centers make up less than 1% of North Carolina's current peak electricity use[8]. But Duke projects they'll drive about 80% of all future demand growth[8]. Today they're a rounding error. Tomorrow, by the utility's own math, they're most of the growth. That gap is where the fight actually lives.
Why a 15% Rate Request Isn't Simple Greed
Duke Energy is currently asking state regulators to let it raise rates by about 15% over two years, in part to expand the grid for that coming demand[7]. On its face, that can look like a company just wanting more money. The mechanism underneath is more specific than that.
Duke is a regulated monopoly. It can't raise money for new power plants and lines the way an ordinary company does, by simply selling more stock. Instead, state regulators set a fixed profit rate, called a return on equity, that Duke is allowed to earn on the infrastructure it builds. That guaranteed rate of return is what makes investors and lenders willing to finance the grid in the first place[7].
Utilities argue this cuts both ways for customers. Set the return too low, they say, and borrowing gets more expensive — and those costs land on customers anyway, through worse reliability or pricier financing down the road[7]. Consumer advocates argue the opposite risk: set the return too high, or approve more construction than the state actually needs, and Duke collects more from ratepayers than it should[7].
That's the real question sitting underneath both campaigns' talking points. Should the companies building data centers cover the cost of the new plants and lines their operations require? Or should that cost be spread across every electric customer in the state, whether they use a data center's services or not[8]?
Whatley's Case: The Race You Can't Afford to Sit Out
Whatley's argument treats AI as a race with real stakes, not just a business trend. Falling behind China on AI infrastructure, in his framing, is a national security problem as much as an economic one[1]. A broad federal moratorium, from that view, would slow America down at the exact moment it can't afford to slow down. He's paired that argument with a broader pledge to lower costs for families[16].
He's also tried to leave room for local complaints, saying data centers shouldn't become "a burden to local communities"[1]. That's a delicate line, because Duke Energy is a donor to his campaign, and Cooper has used that tie against him[11]. Whatley also worked as a lobbyist earlier in his career, and a firm he founded represented utility companies, including a corporate predecessor of Duke Energy[13].
None of that makes his national security argument insincere. An investor-owned utility does have a straightforward financial interest in a larger rate base and more infrastructure to earn a return on[7]. Whatley's position lines up with an industry that benefits from fewer restrictions, and his critics have been quick to say so[18].
Cooper's Case: Fairness Before the Bill Arrives
Cooper's pitch skips the AI-race framing almost entirely. His argument is about who's handed the invoice. His line — data centers should "pay their own way" — is aimed squarely at keeping their power costs off ordinary households' bills[1]. He's tied rising electricity costs directly to Whatley's past ties to Duke Energy[11].
He backs local control and lower costs over an outright federal ban, a stance that lets him avoid picking a fight with communities that still want the jobs and tax revenue data centers can bring[2][17]. That positioning also happens to fit where the race stands: a May 2026 Carolina Journal poll had Cooper ahead of Whatley 49.8% to 38.7%[3]. Framing his opponent as a corporate insider helps him hold that lead with voters anxious about their bills[11].
National Democrats have poured money into the race, seeing a real chance to flip the seat[10]. That doesn't undercut Cooper's substantive argument about who should pay for new infrastructure. It does mean his framing serves his campaign the same way Whatley's serves his.
Underneath both campaigns sits a fact neither one controls. North Carolina has cheap rural land near existing power lines and water, which is exactly what data center developers look for[14]. Real money is already moving: Amazon has pledged roughly $10 billion for a data center campus in Richmond County, part of a larger $100 billion state investment plan projected to create at least 500 high-skill jobs[19].
The Same Race, Told Six Different Ways
Coverage of this fight split along familiar lines. Spectrum News and WRAL, both rated near the political center, stuck to plain framing: a side-by-side of the candidates' positions and a straightforward explanation of who pays for the grid[1][8].
Carolina Journal, published by the conservative John Locke Foundation, led with polling numbers and voter skepticism of data centers, while keeping Whatley's growth argument visible[3]. The Washington Examiner, also right-leaning, emphasized roughly $11 million in national Democratic money flowing into Cooper's campaign, framing him as backed by outside party interests[10].
On the left, The Cool Down described communities pushing back against "water-guzzling" data centers, language that casts the facilities as the aggressor[14]. National Memo went further, headlining its piece "GOP Cleans Up Oil Lobbyist For North Carolina Senate Race" and describing Whatley as a "cleaned up" oil lobbyist[18].
Direct coverage of this specific race from outside the U.S. was thin. But broader international reporting has increasingly folded fights like this one into a larger story about AI's growing appetite for water and power around the world. Whoever wins North Carolina's Senate seat in November, the demand curve driving this argument isn't on the ballot.
Summary
Data centers have become a live issue in North Carolina's 2026 U.S. Senate race. These are big warehouse-like buildings full of computer servers. They power cloud services and, increasingly, artificial intelligence. They use large amounts of electricity and water. Across the state, more than 30 local governments have passed temporary pauses, called moratoriums, on new data centers[2]. Cities like Charlotte, Durham and Wilson, plus counties like Haywood and Chatham, are among them[2]. Local officials say they need time to update old zoning rules and study the effects on power, water and noise[2].
The race is between two well-known figures. Roy Cooper is a Democrat and a former governor[1]. Michael Whatley is a Republican and a former chairman of the Republican National Committee[1]. They have staked out different approaches. Whatley opposes a federal moratorium. He says the U.S. cannot afford to lose the AI race to China, but adds that data centers should not be 'a burden to local communities'[1]. Cooper says data centers should 'pay their own way,' with no new costs passed to regular customers[1]. He has not endorsed the federal pause bill.
The deeper fight is about who pays for the power. Duke Energy, the state's largest utility, says data centers are less than 1% of today's peak electricity use[8]. But it projects they will drive about 80% of future demand growth[8]. Duke has asked regulators for a rate increase of about 15% over two years, in part to expand the grid[7]. The core dispute is this: should the companies that build data centers cover the cost of new power plants and lines, or should that cost be spread across all electric customers[8]? An Elon University poll in April found just 24% of North Carolinians would support building a large data center near them, while 44% would oppose it[4].
The Event
On July 23, 2026, Spectrum News reported where the two major-party U.S. Senate candidates in North Carolina stand on a proposed federal moratorium on new AI data centers[1]. Republican Michael Whatley said the country must not lose the AI race to China, but that data centers should not burden local communities[1]. Democrat Roy Cooper has said data centers should 'pay their own way' and did not answer the outlet's specific question about a federal moratorium[1]. The report came as more than 30 North Carolina local governments have enacted temporary moratoriums on new data centers[2].
Undisputed Facts
- More than 30 North Carolina local governments, including the cities of Charlotte, Durham and Wilson and counties such as Haywood and Chatham, have passed temporary moratoriums on new data centers[2].
- Roy Cooper, a Democrat and former North Carolina governor, and Michael Whatley, a Republican and former Republican National Committee chairman, are the major-party nominees for the state's open U.S. Senate seat[1].
- An Elon University poll released in April 2026 found 24% of North Carolinians would support building a large data center in their community, 44% would oppose it, and 32% were unsure[4].
- Duke Energy, the state's largest utility, reports that data centers are less than 1% of current peak electricity load but are projected to account for about 80% of future demand growth[8].
- Duke Energy has asked state regulators for a rate increase of about 15% over two years, tied in part to grid expansion[7].
- Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced the Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act (S.4214) on March 25, 2026; Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez filed a House version on June 24, 2026[5][6].
- The federal bill would pause new large-scale AI data center construction until Congress passes national safeguards; it is conditional, not tied to a fixed end date[6].
- Michael Whatley worked as a lobbyist, and a firm he founded represented utility companies, including a corporate predecessor of Duke Energy[13].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- The AI power crunch
- AI computing needs vast, steady electricity. Meeting it can require new substations, transmission lines and even new power plants, which cost billions and take years[8].
- Who bears the cost
- Under the standard utility model, big new infrastructure costs are spread across all customers unless rules force large users to pay their own share. That is the real lever both candidates are circling[8].
- Regulated-monopoly incentives
- State regulators set a fixed rate of return, called a return on equity, that Duke Energy is allowed to earn on qualifying grid investments. That return is also the mechanism regulators use to attract the investors and lenders who finance new plants and lines, since a regulated monopoly cannot raise capital the way an ordinary competitive company does. Utilities and their backers argue that setting the return too low raises borrowing costs, which ultimately gets passed to customers through reliability problems or higher long-term financing costs. Consumer advocates counter that a return set too high, or approval of buildout that is not strictly necessary, lets the utility overcollect from ratepayers. That tension over where to set the return, not simply a claim that Duke wants more profit, is what plays out in rate cases like the one now before regulators[7].
- A competitive open seat
- This is one of the few 2026 races that could flip control of the Senate, drawing national money and attention to a local issue[10].
Material realityNorth Carolina has cheap rural land near power lines and water, which draws data center developers[14]. Demand from these facilities is small today but set to dominate future growth[8]. Bills have already risen sharply, and Duke wants more[7]. Local governments hold real power over land use and zoning, which federal or state action does not simply override[12]. Those facts persist no matter which candidate wins.
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asWhatley says AI is a national security and economic race the U.S. cannot afford to lose to China, so a broad federal moratorium would be a mistake[1]. He argues the answer is more energy and faster building, not a pause. At the same time, he says data centers should not become 'a burden to local communities,' leaving room for local control[1]. His broader pitch is that he will make things cost less for families[16].
WhyWhatley wants to win an open Senate seat and align with the Trump administration's pro-AI, pro-energy agenda[12]. He also needs to answer voter unease about power bills without opposing an industry his party and donors favor[7].
Impact on themHis past as a lobbyist for utilities, including a Duke Energy predecessor, has become a line of attack[13]. Duke Energy is a donor to his campaign, which Cooper uses against him[11].
Frames it asCooper's core argument is fairness in who pays. He says data centers should 'pay their own way,' so their power costs are not passed to households[1]. He frames rising bills as a kitchen-table issue and ties them to his opponent's ties to Duke Energy[11]. He backs local control and lower costs rather than an outright ban[17].
WhyCooper wants to win the seat and keep his cost-of-living message central[17]. Casting Whatley as a corporate insider helps him with voters worried about bills[18].
Impact on themCooper leads in public polls; a May Carolina Journal survey put him ahead 49.8% to 38.7%[3]. Democrats have poured large sums into the race, seeing it as a chance to flip a seat[10].
Frames it asLocal officials say the moratoriums are a pause to catch up, not a ban. Their zoning rules were written before giant AI facilities existed, so they want time to set standards for noise, water and power[2]. Residents worry about higher electric bills, strain on water systems, and quality of life[14].
WhyLocal leaders want control over land use and to protect constituents from costs and nuisances they did not choose[2]. Many still want jobs and tax revenue, so most pauses are temporary, often about a year[2].
Impact on themA wave of moratoriums can slow or reroute billions in tech investment[9]. Rural counties in particular offer cheap land near power lines, which draws developers[14].
Frames it asTech companies and the utility argue that AI infrastructure means jobs, investment and U.S. leadership in a strategic industry[12]. That argument points to concrete projects: Amazon has pledged about $10 billion for a data center campus in Richmond County, part of a roughly $100 billion North Carolina investment plan, projected to create at least 500 high-skill jobs plus thousands of construction and supply-chain jobs[19]. Duke says it must expand the grid to meet demand and keep power reliable[8]. Industry notes that many pledges already commit large users to help cover their own costs[9].
WhyDevelopers want to build fast where land and power are cheap[14]. Duke Energy, a regulated monopoly, earns a return on new grid investment, giving it reason to build and to recover costs through rates[7].
Impact on themDuke is in an active rate case seeking about 15% more over two years[7]. State leaders are pressing it to make a federal ratepayer-protection pledge legally binding[9].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 4.8
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spectrum News | U.S. center | 2 | "Where N.C. political candidates stand on federal data center moratorium" — a straight side-by-side of the two candidates' positions. | Neutral verbs and direct quotes. It notes Cooper 'didn't respond' to a specific question rather than characterizing his silence, which is careful attribution. |
| WRAL | U.S. center | 2 | "As data centers drive a power boom, North Carolina faces a costly question: Who pays?" — frames the story around cost allocation. | Explains the mechanism of socialized grid costs in plain terms and quotes lawmakers on both sides, with little loaded language. |
| Carolina Journal | U.S. right | 5 | "Cooper's lead over Whatley in Senate race widens" — leads with polling and voter skepticism of data centers. | Published by the John Locke Foundation, a conservative group. It foregrounds voter opposition to data centers and horse-race numbers, keeping Whatley's growth message present but framing the terrain as tough for pro-data-center stances. |
| Washington Examiner | U.S. right | 6 | "Democrats hand Roy Cooper another $11 million in North Carolina Senate race" — frames Cooper as fueled by national party money. | Emphasis on out-of-state Democratic cash implies Cooper is a national-party project, downplaying his in-state cost-of-living message. |
| The Cool Down | U.S. left | 6 | "More than two dozen North Carolina communities push back against new, water-guzzling AI data centers" — frames residents versus industry. | Loaded phrase 'water-guzzling' and 'push back' cast data centers as the aggressor. It centers environmental harm and community resistance. |
| National Memo | U.S. left | 8 | "'Not A Politician': GOP Cleans Up Oil Lobbyist For North Carolina Senate Race" — frames Whatley as a hidden corporate lobbyist. | Sarcastic 'cleans up' and 'oil lobbyist' framing treats Whatley's industry past as the central fact and dismisses his outsider image. |
References
- Where N.C. political candidates stand on federal data center moratorium — Spectrum News · U.S. center; regional TV news
- Data centers face moratorium fever from NC local governments — Carolina Public Press · U.S. center; nonprofit state news outlet
- May 2026 — Cooper's lead over Whatley in Senate race widens — Carolina Journal · U.S. right; published by the conservative John Locke Foundation
- Elon Poll: Cooper maintains wide name recognition lead in NC Senate race — Elon University · University polling center; nonpartisan academic
- Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez Announce AI Data Center Moratorium Act — Office of Sen. Bernie Sanders · Primary source; sponsor's press release (progressive)
- S.4214 - Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act — Congress.gov · Primary source; U.S. government legislative record
- Duke Energy's 15% rate hike request sparks debate over data center energy demand — WSOC-TV · U.S. center; regional TV news
- As data centers drive a power boom, North Carolina faces a costly question: Who pays? — WRAL · U.S. center; regional TV news
- NC leaders push Duke Energy to make federal data center pledge legally binding — WRAL · U.S. center; regional TV news
- Democrats hand Roy Cooper another $11 million in North Carolina Senate race — Washington Examiner · U.S. right; conservative outlet
- Roy Cooper Jabs Opponent Michael Whatley for Lobbying for Duke Energy — C-SPAN · Primary source; unedited campaign video
- Federal AI Data Center Policy Meets Resistance From State Lawmakers — MultiState · Government-affairs tracking firm; industry-oriented but factual
- Michael Whatley — Wikipedia · Crowd-sourced encyclopedia; cite with care
- More than two dozen North Carolina communities push back against new, water-guzzling AI data centers — The Cool Down · U.S. left; environmental advocacy-leaning outlet
- Whatley says he will make things cost less, says Cooper was the state's worst governor — WFAE · U.S. center; NPR member station
- Roy Cooper Talks Iran War, Low Prices, Health Care, Data Centers in Fayetteville Stop — CityView · U.S. center; local news
- 'Not A Politician': GOP Cleans Up Oil Lobbyist For North Carolina Senate Race — National Memo · U.S. left; progressive commentary outlet
- Amazon Expands Cloud, AI Footprint With $10 Billion Data Center Investment In North Carolina — Benzinga · U.S. center; financial trade press