Tim Merrick

Data centers can bring investment and economic activity to a community, but those benefits should not come at the expense of residents through higher utility bills, strained water supplies, or environmental and public-health impacts.

When considering new data centers, I would follow a simple principle: growth should pay for growth. Before approving a project, we should have a transparent accounting of its expected electricity and water demand, the infrastructure required to serve it, its environmental and public-health impacts, and who will ultimately pay those costs. Data centers should be responsible for the infrastructure and resource costs attributable to their operations rather than shifting those expenses onto residential customers and small businesses.

I would support requiring applicants to disclose projected energy and water consumption, demonstrate water- and energy-efficiency measures, and provide financial assurances for infrastructure built specifically to serve their facilities. Where appropriate, large-load utility rates, impact fees, or other cost-recovery mechanisms should ensure that these exceptionally large users pay their fair share.

I am also interested in examining whether companies that derive significant economic value from collecting, storing, processing, or monetizing data should contribute additional revenue to the communities that host the physical infrastructure making that activity possible. Any such policy would need to be carefully designed so that it is enforceable and does not simply pass costs back to consumers.

My goal would not be to prohibit data-center development, but to make sure development is responsible, transparent, and economically beneficial to the community as a whole while protecting affordable electricity, clean and reliable water, public health, and our natural resources.

As a school board member, I understand that a strong school-to-career pipeline begins well before graduation. North Carolina should expand opportunities for students to explore science and biotechnology careers through strong STEM and CTE programs, dual enrollment, internships, apprenticeships, and partnerships with our community colleges. I would especially encourage greater private-sector investment in public schools. Companies that benefit from North Carolina’s workforce can help build the next generation of that workforce by providing equipment, expertise, teacher training, internships, and other hands-on learning opportunities. These partnerships should strengthen not replace public investment and should reach rural and underserved communities as well. Our goal should be clear pathways from the classroom to an affordable credential or degree and, ultimately, a good-paying career in North Carolina.

Government has a fundamental responsibility to protect public health and ensure access to clean water and safe communities. Our region knows firsthand the consequences of PFAS contamination in drinking water. Government must act quickly to ensure residents have clean, safe water while holding polluters accountable for the cost of cleanup not leaving taxpayers and families to foot the bill.

We also live in a hurricane-prone region, making emergency preparedness essential. State and local governments must plan and coordinate before disasters occur, strengthen critical infrastructure, and ensure emergency services and resources are ready when communities need them most. Whether addressing contaminated water or preparing for the next storm, protecting public health requires preparation, accountability, and a government capable of responding when people need it.

Elected officials have a responsibility to seek out and respect scientific expertise when making decisions that affect the public. Scientists should have a meaningful seat at the table, and their findings should be communicated to the public clearly and transparently. While elected officials must weigh many factors when making policy, disregarding scientific evidence or choosing only the evidence that supports a predetermined position undermines public trust in both science and government. We should encourage scientists to engage directly with communities, explain not only what the evidence shows but also where uncertainty exists, and make scientific information accessible to everyone. Good public policy should be informed by evidence, open debate, and a willingness to change course when new evidence demands it.