OPINION: We're in that phase of the data center rush where the corporations are fighting ⁠49%

By John L. Smith⁠61%

8/2/2026, 2:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Negativity Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 19.9% saturation with 167 hits. Analysis detected 1,297 faulty-reasoning hits from 838 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 42.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠49% (14,878 of 28,846 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 51.60% of the article peer group.

Increasingly controversial at both ends of the state, Nevada's data center gold rush is getting more complicated and politically volatile. 
Thanks to a rising skepticism from citizen taxpayers, a few critical voices from the state's political class and some pugnacious and partially redacted litigation filed this week by NV Energy, those pining for a public vetting of this important issue may be starting to see a little daylight. 
It rarely pays to say anything nice about a public utility, and I can't quite bring myself to do it now. 
But NV Energy's poke-in-the-eye of a lawsuit against Northern Nevada artificial intelligence data center developer Tract certainly spices up what promises to be a long fight for fairness on many fronts. 
The utility accuses Tract of attempting to circumvent the Public Utility Commission of Nevada's (PUCN) well-established regulatory process through a private arbitration demand filed June 16 as it presses forward with two projects capable of accommodating the appetite of a major AI technology company the size of, say, Nvidia. 
Time appears to be of the essence. 
In May, Tract announced through its Fleet Data Centers subsidiary that it had signed a 16.5-year, triple net lease with a major tenant. 
NV Energy, meanwhile, has acknowledged that the enormous amount of electricity needed to power current AI data center projects and others in the planning stages will take time and a large investment to service. 
In the interim, Tract has announced a "temporary" alternative power source in the form of large-scale, privately owned natural gas and diesel generators. 
The alternative power source, which generates its own environmental issues, makes me wonder whether the company was moving so fast in the market that it signed a contract before securing the electricity necessary to fulfill it. 
But that's a subject for another day. 
NV Energy argues that, by statute, it is obligated to manage the growth of its infrastructure "responsibly and fairly for all customers." 
But how do you manage a gold rush? 
NV Energy seeks a declaratory judgment and a halt of the demanded arbitration. 
It calls the PUCN the proper forum for the regulation of electric utilities with the commission duty-bound to protect and serve the public interest as well as provide consumer protection, rate stability and effective long-term planning. 
In a statement, Tract says its effort to seek pressing private arbitration is justified under its subsidiary's contract with the utility. 
Lest anyone is still confused, NV Energy's lawsuit blasts, "The Demand Seeks Regulatory Relief that Only the Commission Can Grant" above a blacked-out redaction. 
For its part, Tract is no stranger to the Nevada court system, having successfully entered the state's lucrative data center development picture after tenaciously defending a lawsuit by in-state rival Switch . 
That's a polite way of saying, this latest legal dispute is only beginning. 
It's far from the only dustup on Nevada's data center front. 
With 1st Congressional District Rep. 
Dina Titus (D-NV) keen for a fight with the Bureau of Land Management over its chummy decision to approve a data center project on federal land adjacent to the Boulder City city limits, she and a few other Nevada elected officials are suggesting substantial changes to the state's generous tax abatements for such projects. 
It might make you wonder why more incumbents and challengers are speaking up on this issue. 
Multiple polls show strong opposition to rapid data center development from registered voters from the two major parties. 
Some of that opposition appears absolute. 
Many desire more regulatory transparency, environmental safeguards and protections of water and power resources. 
In a recent article in Harper's, Andrew Cockburn offers insight into the ongoing battles over data center development and notes that it's little secret why more elected officials aren't giving voice to their constituents' concerns. 
Writing about the state of play in Virginia, he observes, "For years, developers and technology companies have enjoyed a hearty welcome from state authorities eager for promised jobs and economic gain." 
Marching behind a banner of jobs and new technology, those officials accepted generous campaign contributions from developers with an endless fount of funding long after those promises had faded. 
Closer to home, one candidate who knows plenty about the law is former state legislator Teresa Benitez-Thompson, now a Democratic candidate for Nevada's deep-red 2nd Congressional District. 
She told me in an interview earlier this year, "The market itself is providing an incentive that didn't exist in 2015 when a number of those tax abatements were set up," she said. 
"So, certainly, revisiting the sweetheart deal that they have makes a lot of sense." 
Every Nevada candidate on the 2026 ballot should tell voters where they stand — and with whom. 
John L. 
Smith is an author and longtime columnist. 
He was born in Henderson and his family's Nevada roots go back to 1881. 
His stories have appeared in New Lines, Time, Reader's Digest, Rolling Stone, The Daily Beast, Reuters and Desert Companion, among others . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.6%John L. Smith: 3.8%The Nevada Independent: 2.2%Confirmation Bias7.6%This article: 0.0%John L. Smith: 0.0%The Nevada Independent: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.0%John L. Smith: 3.8%The Nevada Independent: 1.8%Availability Heuristic10.0%This article: 1.7%John L. Smith: 0.4%The Nevada Independent: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic1.7%This article: 0.0%John L. Smith: 1.1%The Nevada Independent: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John L. Smith: 0.0%The Nevada Independent: 0.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 18.9%John L. Smith: 11.8%The Nevada Independent: 4.4%Framing Effect18.9%This article: 0.0%John L. Smith: 0.0%The Nevada Independent: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.6%John L. Smith: 1.3%The Nevada Independent: 0.5%Status Quo Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%John L. Smith: 0.0%The Nevada Independent: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.9%John L. Smith: 1.5%The Nevada Independent: 2.4%Optimism Bias3.9%This article: 4.3%John L. Smith: 1.5%The Nevada Independent: 1.6%Pessimism Bias4.3%This article: 17.1%John L. Smith: 5.8%The Nevada Independent: 4.2%Negativity Bias17.1%This article: 0.0%John L. Smith: 1.5%The Nevada Independent: 2.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%John L. Smith: 1.1%The Nevada Independent: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error4.3%This article: 0.0%John L. Smith: 0.0%The Nevada Independent: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John L. Smith: 0.0%The Nevada Independent: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John L. Smith: 0.0%The Nevada Independent: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.7%John L. Smith: 0.4%The Nevada Independent: 0.6%Halo Effect1.7%This article: 0.0%John L. Smith: 0.0%The Nevada Independent: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John L. Smith: 0.0%The Nevada Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John L. Smith: 0.0%The Nevada Independent: 0.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John L. Smith: 0.0%The Nevada Independent: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John L. Smith: 0.0%The Nevada Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%John L. Smith: 3.8%The Nevada Independent: 1.1%Ad Hominem6.4%This article: 0.0%John L. Smith: 0.0%The Nevada Independent: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.8%John L. Smith: 2.7%The Nevada Independent: 1.5%Appeal to Authority6.8%This article: 4.3%John L. Smith: 1.3%The Nevada Independent: 1.0%False Dilemma4.3%This article: 0.0%John L. Smith: 0.0%The Nevada Independent: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%John L. Smith: 0.0%The Nevada Independent: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.0%John L. Smith: 7.4%The Nevada Independent: 2.7%Hasty Generalization13.0%This article: 0.0%John L. Smith: 0.0%The Nevada Independent: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%John L. Smith: 0.0%The Nevada Independent: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%John L. Smith: 0.9%The Nevada Independent: 2.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 6.4%John L. Smith: 1.6%The Nevada Independent: 0.4%Begging the Question6.4%This article: 3.5%John L. Smith: 0.9%The Nevada Independent: 1.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.5%This article: 0.0%John L. Smith: 0.0%The Nevada Independent: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%John L. Smith: 0.0%The Nevada Independent: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%John L. Smith: 0.0%The Nevada Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%John L. Smith: 0.0%The Nevada Independent: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.7%John L. Smith: 0.9%The Nevada Independent: 1.1%Anecdotal3.7%This article: 0.0%John L. Smith: 0.0%The Nevada Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.7%John L. Smith: 0.2%The Nevada Independent: 0.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.7%This article: 0.0%John L. Smith: 0.0%The Nevada Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%John L. Smith: 0.0%The Nevada Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%John L. Smith: 0.0%The Nevada Independent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%John L. Smith: 0.0%The Nevada Independent: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%John L. Smith: 0.0%The Nevada Independent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.8%John L. Smith: 1.5%The Nevada Independent: 0.7%Unattributed Quote5.8%This article: 2.9%John L. Smith: 1.4%The Nevada Independent: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection2.9%This article: 19.9%John L. Smith: 15.7%The Nevada Independent: 2.8%Biased Writer Voice19.9%This article: 4.9%John L. Smith: 2.2%The Nevada Independent: 1.0%Indoctrination4.9%This article: 0.0%John L. Smith: 1.9%The Nevada Independent: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John L. Smith: 0.0%The Nevada Independent: 0.7%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%John L. Smith: 1.1%The Nevada Independent: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.3%

838 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers47%attributed speech443writer words
Selected voice

Dina Titus

100%flagged-word coverage
54 attributed words14% of attributed speech77% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+74.5 ptsWriter: 25.5%Dina Titus: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination-9.3 ptsWriter: 9.3%Dina Titus: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -8.1 ptsWriter: 8.1%Dina Titus: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.