Kalamazoo County brought five subject-matter experts together Thursday to help residents understand what data centers and battery energy storage systems mean for communities like theirs.
The event, held June 25 at the Dale B. Lake Auditorium on the Kalamazoo Valley Community College Texas Township campus, drew a full house. Kalamazoo County Government organized the panel and invited residents, elected officials, and local government leaders to attend.
The county was clear from the start about its own role: Kalamazoo County government has no authority over whether data centers or battery storage projects get sited or approved. Those decisions belong to local units of government: city commissions, township boards, planning commissions. The evening was educational, not a hearing, and no decisions were made.
What it was, though, was one of the more substantive public conversations Kalamazoo County has hosted on a topic that’s generating real questions from residents across the region.
What’s actually coming — and why here
Dr. Sarah Mills, Director of the Center for EmPowering Communities at the University of Michigan Graham Sustainability Institute, explained what’s drawing hyperscale data center developers to Michigan right now. The short answer: electricity, tax incentives, internet connectivity, and land.
Michigan passed a sales tax exemption for data centers in 2015, updated it with additional certainty for developers in 2025, and has available power capacity that other, more saturated markets don’t. Data center developers are also looking for land — preferably cleared, flat, and in low-millage-rate jurisdictions like townships. And crucially, they’re looking for communities with zoning ordinances that permit them.
Dr. Mills noted that the largest data center currently under development in Michigan is in Saline Township, on a site of roughly 250 acres within a larger 575-acre parcel. Hyperscale facilities — those over 100 megawatts of power capacity — are a different category from the roughly 70 smaller, long-established data centers already operating in Michigan. The newer facilities look like large, windowless warehouses and can reach into the hundreds of megawatts.
The energy and water tradeoff
Liesl Clark, Director of Climate Action Engagement at the University of Michigan School for Environment and Sustainability and former director of EGLE, walked through one of the most commonly misunderstood aspects of data center operations: cooling.
Hyperscale data centers can cool their servers using either open-loop or closed-loop systems. Open-loop systems use more water directly; closed-loop systems use significantly less. But Clark pointed to a complicating factor: because of the enormous amount of electricity these facilities consume, they can use substantial amounts of water indirectly — through the fossil-fuel power plants that generate that electricity. As Michigan’s grid transitions away from coal and natural gas, that indirect water footprint shrinks.
Clark flagged transparency as a persistent problem. Getting accurate data on exactly how much water and energy a given hyperscaler is actually using is harder than it should be — and that, she said, is a legitimate concern for communities trying to make informed decisions.
The economic picture — including what the job numbers actually mean
Tyler Theile, Vice President and Director of Public Policy and Economic Analysis at the Anderson Economic Group, offered a grounded look at what hyperscale data centers actually deliver economically.
A 100-megawatt facility could generate upward of $5 million per year in new property tax revenue and produce over $140 million in combined direct and indirect annual output. Those are real numbers. But Theile was direct about employment figures: when a company announces that a facility will “support” a thousand jobs, those jobs are often spread across the globe and include positions only loosely connected to the local site. Modeled to Michigan specifically, a large data center employing 100 people long-term might produce around 48 net-new Michigan jobs. That figure matters — but it’s not the headline number developers tend to lead with.
The opportunity Theile described is real, but contingent on communities asking the right questions and making decisions carefully, while the window is open. Trillions of dollars are projected to flow into hyperscale data center development globally over the next few years.
Environmental justice and the seven-generation view
Elizabeth Montez, a board member of Miigwech, Inc. and a private citizen speaking from her own experience in indigenous communities, offered a framework that cut across the rest of the panel’s discussion.
Montez noted a consistent historical pattern: when technological progress brings negative impacts, those impacts fall disproportionately on indigenous and other economically marginalized communities. Three hundred years of broken treaties, she said, create legitimate reasons for distrust when promises of positive outcomes are made. Her organization’s orientation — preserving a thriving future seven generations ahead — stands in contrast to the 20-year monetary timeframe that typically drives development decisions.
On water specifically, Montez was direct: impacts on the Great Lakes and related ecosystems can’t be undone. She also raised the human cost that doesn’t show up in economic impact analyses — workers and neighbors who are already economically vulnerable don’t necessarily benefit from nearby development in proportion to the risk they absorb.
What battery energy storage actually is — and what it could do for Michigan
Dr. John Kinch, Executive Director of Michigan Energy Options and Board President of the Great Lakes Energy Association, explained where battery energy storage systems fit into Michigan’s energy future.
BESS — systems of lithium-ion batteries connected to the grid that store excess energy during off-peak hours and release it during peak demand — are increasingly important as Michigan integrates more intermittent renewable energy like solar and wind. Solar works roughly 15% of the time in Michigan; storage is what makes it dispatchable when the sun isn’t shining.
Kinch noted that Michigan leads the nation in both the frequency and duration of power outages, driven largely by extreme weather events that are themselves driven by climate change. Storage placed strategically in the distribution grid — where utilities know they have congestion or capacity issues — can address exactly that vulnerability.
The cost of lithium-ion batteries has dropped 99% since 1991. Storage is now following the same trajectory solar did: once too expensive to be practical, now the fastest-growing segment of new electricity capacity in the country.
What communities should actually do
Across the panel, several practical themes emerged for residents and local governments considering how to engage with these technologies:
Show up before decisions are made. Dr. Mills was direct: the decisions happen at planning commissions and township and city board meetings. By the time a project is already approved, the leverage is gone. Attending public meetings and participating in planning processes is where community input has the most weight.
Get commitments in writing. Developers will describe their projects favorably. Mills said she doesn’t believe in verbal commitments — she wants them in writing. If a generator is supposed to be used only during outages, put it in writing. If there’s a promised property tax contribution, put it in writing. An Illinois school district, Theile noted, was able to write a $22 million check for a new school building — no bonds, no tax increases — because it had negotiated well with data center developers that had located in its area.
Ask for closed-loop cooling. The technology exists and is increasingly standard. Communities can ask for it. Developers have the resources to provide it.
Understand the regulatory landscape for BESS specifically. Battery energy storage projects under 50 megawatts are regulated locally. Larger projects can go either to the local level or to the Michigan Public Service Commission — and the choice belongs to the local government. Under state law, developers going through the PSC pay a community benefit of $2,000 per megawatt; local governments that permit large projects directly are eligible for a $4,000 per megawatt payment from EGLE.
Ask for sound, light, and decommissioning provisions. Sound — particularly low-frequency infrasound that’s felt more than heard — is consistently the most noticeable quality-of-life impact for neighbors of energy facilities. Local ordinances can address it. So can dark-sky light provisions and required decommissioning plans.
Know that developers have deep pockets and are prospecting broadly. Kinch observed that 30 to 50% of proposed data center projects never get built. Communities should understand their own priorities clearly enough to negotiate from them — because the companies involved are among the most financially powerful on earth, and they can afford to meet high standards if communities require them.
The full recording
The full event was recorded by Public Media Network. You can watch it with chapter indexing to jump to different points of information here.
