The rumors around the old J.M. Stuart power plant site in Adams County now have a paper trail to match. A proposed data center buildout on the shuttered coal plant property is emerging as a project that could dwarf anything the region has seen, with documents and permits pointing to an enormous future power demand. Worried neighbors are already trying to put a 25 megawatt cap in front of Ohio voters.
Gigawatt request on the record
In a filing with PJM, AES Ohio reported a customer request for power near its Stuart Substation that starts at about 100 megawatts in 2028 and ramps up to roughly 1,300 megawatts by March 2032. That staged schedule, and the transmission work PJM says it would require, already has planners sketching out new substations and high voltage lines. Using the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s average household consumption, that level of demand would be roughly comparable to the annual electricity use of about a million U.S. homes, according to the EIA.
Petitioners take the fight to Columbus
According to the Ohio Attorney General, a committee’s initiative titled “Prohibition of Construction of a Data Center” was certified on March 16, 2026, with the full text of the proposal and the Attorney General’s action posted on the office’s website. Organizers say they collected thousands of preliminary signatures before filing and are now gearing up for a statewide signature drive to meet Ohio’s statutory thresholds.
How big is Ohio’s data center footprint?
Industry trackers count roughly 203 data centers across Ohio, with a dense cluster around Columbus and smaller groups in several other markets. Data Center Map lists the current facilities, and a study prepared for the Ohio Chamber of Commerce Research Foundation estimates the industry supported about 95,000 jobs and $11.8 billion in GDP in 2024. The same report projects growth to roughly 132,500 jobs and more than $20 billion by 2030, while warning that a significant share of those headline employment numbers comes from short term construction work.
Local deals, lost revenue and permits
Neighbors and local officials say many site talks have been pushed behind closed doors, with nondisclosure agreements, land purchases and incentive negotiations limiting what the public can see. Reporting by Cleveland.com describes riverfront acreage marketed for development and offers made on parcels near the former Stuart plant. Industry coverage has also noted that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued permits connected to work in the project area. Those public records, combined with the memory of coal plant closures that stripped local tax rolls, help explain why residents are asking who will pay for new transmission infrastructure and pollution controls, concerns documented by outlets such as Data Center Dynamics.
Voices from the valley
“At minimum, let people have a voice,” said Austin Baurichter, one of the petition’s co authors, in local reporting summarized by WLWT. Petition backers say putting the question on the ballot would force statewide scrutiny of energy use, water demand and tax incentive deals. Industry groups counter that a statewide cap would scare off billions in private investment and the construction activity that comes with it. That basic clash has already fueled town hall showdowns, lawsuits and a stack of competing bills in Columbus.
Legal and procedural hurdles
To qualify for the statewide ballot, petitioners must collect signatures equal to 10 percent of the votes cast for governor in 2022 and also meet county distribution rules. That means signatures from at least 44 of Ohio’s 88 counties, with minimum counts in each, according to requirements posted by the Ohio Attorney General. Even if the petition clears initial verification, organizers are likely to face legal challenges over the wording and enforceability of the measure and must reach a high bar for valid signatures well before statutory deadlines, a process detailed in reporting from the Ohio Capital Journal.
Whether the fight ends up in county commission chambers, before utility regulators or on a statewide ballot, the Adams County dispute spotlights a familiar trade off. Communities chasing large tech investments and the tax breaks that lure them are also staring down the cost of grid upgrades, the risk of higher electric rates and local environmental impacts. The outcome is likely to be shaped as much by public records and regulatory dockets as by front porch conversations and petition clipboards.
