Survey: Californians really don’t want more data centers 26%

By Lynn La25%

7/16/2026, 6:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 22.3% saturation with 231 hits. Analysis detected 1,916 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,038 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 37.8% and a BS Rank of 26% (16,278 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 74.40% of the article peer group.

A new survey shows that Californians really don’t like artificial intelligence data centers. 
The latest Public Policy Institute of California poll of 1,578 adult Californians finds that 73% oppose the construction of data centers in their communities. 
Though the majority of both Democrats and Republicans disapprove of building data centers, Republicans are slightly more likely to favor them than Democrats. 
It’s not just California. 
National polls show the same margin of people opposing data centers. 
That’s going to be a challenge for the high-flying AI companies that are powering the Bay Area economy. 
The industry estimates it supported 665,000 California jobs and contributed billions in state and local taxes. 
Opposition to data centers were the strongest among respondents in the Inland Empire and Los Angeles. 
Sixty-three percent also worried about the environmental effects of data centers, with the highest concern coming from San Francisco Bay Area residents. 
The survey follows a recent protest in San Francisco, a citywide ban on data centers in Monterey Park and lawsuits coming out of Imperial Valley contesting a plan for one there. 
Although Californians appear united on data centers, the survey showed the cost of living and affordability is beginning to dent support for environmental regulations. 
About 66% of respondents oppose Gov. 
Gavin Newsom’s order banning the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035  up from 49% of those surveyed in July 2021. 
A vast majority of Republicans oppose the ban (91%), but Democrats are split (50% in opposition). 
And while 62% of participants say they support a state law mandating that electricity in California comes from renewable sources by 2045, nearly an equal percentage of Californians say the cost of energy, like gas and electric bills, is too high. 
Not too surprising then, that only 38% said they’re willing to cough up more money to pay for wind and solar energy. 
CalMatters’ 11th anniversary drive: Double your gift and fund independent reporting that helps you vote with confidence, follow the facts and hold the powerful accountable. 
Every gift makes a difference, please give now. 
Other Stories You Should Know 
‘Just one word  plastics’ 
A new federal law requires U.S. colleges and universities to prove their graduates earn at least the median wage of someone in their state with only a high school diploma. 
If their students don’t, that undergraduate program could be ineligible for federal loans, writes CalMatters’ Adam Echelman. 
In California, the average high school graduate is expected to earn about $18 an hour, or $36,000 a year. 
Roughly 90% of graduates from the nearly 3,000 California higher education programs reviewed by the U.S. 
Department of Education earned at least that much. 
But graduates of about 300 California programs  most of which are at for-profit colleges  do not meet the requirement, particularly those in cosmetology, medical assisting, arts and theater programs. 
Theater and fine arts programs at 11 public universities failed, too. 
Roughly 100 California fine arts, music and theater programs pass the new requirement. 
Many schools that failed the test have criticized the numbers as misleading. 
Angelica Muro, chairperson of the visual arts and music department at Cal State Monterey Bay: The new earnings rule “undercuts the societal benefits of critical thinking and the immense sociocultural value held within the arts.” 
Read more. 
Upcoming one-party elections 
Californians will choose between a Republican and a Democrat in the race for governor this fall, but that won’t be the case for a number of down-ballot contests in which voters will choose between candidates from the same party. 
A group that wants voters to repeal the 2010 ballot initiative that gave California open primaries is highlighting the roster of single-party races as it gathers signatures for its own measure. 
The one-party races include insurance commissioner  which pits Democrat Ben Allen against Democrat Jane Kim  as well as eight congressional districts, two state Senate districts and 10 Assembly districts. 
Former Gov. 
Arnold Schwarzenegger supported the ballot measure that shifted the state to open primaries in the interest of helping moderate politicians win office. 
This year’s crowded governor’s primary focused attention on the practice because voters from both parties at different times feared being shut out of the November election. 
The group that wants to bring back closed primaries, “Undo the Top Two,” is aiming for the November 2028 ballot. 
And lastly: We hear you! 
👂 
Hi, Adam Ashton here  editor of WhatMatters. 
We get emails almost every day asking for more links to news stories that don’t have paywalls. 
We appreciate the feedback, and that tells us many of you view this newsletter as a primary news source. 
We also know that some of California’s best news sources depend on subscriptions. 
Going forward, we’re going to do our best to provide free gift links to those stories to help you stay informed on the state’s top stories. 
We’ll also make sure we mix in links to free sites. 
Thanks for reaching out to us and let us know if the gift links help. 
California Voices 
Kelly Davis was one of San Diego’s most consequential investigative journalists, and her battle to report preventable deaths in San Diego County jails demonstrates why a bill that would weaken California’s Public Records Act must not become law, writes David Myers, a retired commander in the San Diego Sheriff’s Office. 
Other things worth your time: 
PG&E power shutoffs planned for this weekend because of fire risk // KQED 
Wild horse roundup targets a herd that proliferated near the iconic tufa towers of Mono Lake // San Francisco Chronicle (gift link) 
Newsom’s populist turn on artificial intelligence // Politico 
Two million workers are locked out of an improving job market // The Wall Street Journal (gift link) 
On the joys of winning a prize at a CA county fair  at any age // The Modesto Focus 
Immigration courts are denying more bond requests, especially at Adelanto // LAist 
CA water managers trying new way to fight invasive golden mussels // Abridged 
The Orange County man who wants to build a bronze statue of Trump // The Orange County Register (gift link) 
Homeless seniors staying on the streets longer // Voice of San Diego 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.1%Lynn La: 1.4%CalMatters: 2.5%Confirmation Bias8.1%This article: 0.0%Lynn La: 0.6%CalMatters: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%Lynn La: 2.7%CalMatters: 2.4%Availability Heuristic6.7%This article: 0.4%Lynn La: 0.7%CalMatters: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.4%This article: 0.0%Lynn La: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynn La: 0.3%CalMatters: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Lynn La: 6.4%CalMatters: 5.7%Framing Effect2.8%This article: 3.9%Lynn La: 0.9%CalMatters: 0.8%Loss Aversion3.9%This article: 0.0%Lynn La: 0.6%CalMatters: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynn La: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.2%Lynn La: 1.2%CalMatters: 1.9%Optimism Bias3.2%This article: 6.2%Lynn La: 1.7%CalMatters: 2.0%Pessimism Bias6.2%This article: 22.3%Lynn La: 9.0%CalMatters: 8.0%Negativity Bias22.3%This article: 2.0%Lynn La: 1.9%CalMatters: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias2.0%This article: 2.5%Lynn La: 1.2%CalMatters: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error2.5%This article: 0.0%Lynn La: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Lynn La: 1.1%CalMatters: 0.8%In-Group Bias1.5%This article: 3.0%Lynn La: 0.5%CalMatters: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.0%This article: 1.7%Lynn La: 0.8%CalMatters: 1.4%Halo Effect1.7%This article: 0.0%Lynn La: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynn La: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.1%Lynn La: 0.6%CalMatters: 1.1%Recency Bias2.1%This article: 0.0%Lynn La: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynn La: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynn La: 0.9%CalMatters: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynn La: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.7%Lynn La: 3.7%CalMatters: 3.2%Appeal to Authority14.7%This article: 5.3%Lynn La: 1.1%CalMatters: 1.0%False Dilemma5.3%This article: 0.0%Lynn La: 0.8%CalMatters: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynn La: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.7%Lynn La: 3.7%CalMatters: 3.7%Hasty Generalization11.7%This article: 0.0%Lynn La: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynn La: 0.5%CalMatters: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.2%Lynn La: 6.6%CalMatters: 5.3%Appeal to Emotion11.2%This article: 0.0%Lynn La: 0.8%CalMatters: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 12.6%Lynn La: 2.1%CalMatters: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.6%This article: 0.0%Lynn La: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynn La: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynn La: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynn La: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.2%Lynn La: 2.1%CalMatters: 1.8%Anecdotal1.2%This article: 0.0%Lynn La: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.6%Lynn La: 1.2%CalMatters: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.6%This article: 0.0%Lynn La: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.9%Lynn La: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.1%Middle Ground3.9%This article: 0.0%Lynn La: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynn La: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynn La: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.0%Lynn La: 2.2%CalMatters: 0.9%Unattributed Quote5.0%This article: 3.4%Lynn La: 1.6%CalMatters: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection3.4%This article: 12.7%Lynn La: 4.2%CalMatters: 3.3%Biased Writer Voice12.7%This article: 10.7%Lynn La: 2.0%CalMatters: 1.0%Indoctrination10.7%This article: 0.0%Lynn La: 0.7%CalMatters: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynn La: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 14.2%Lynn La: 3.7%CalMatters: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…14.2%

1038 words analyzed.

Speakers

19speakers35%attributed speech673writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coveragePublic Policy Institute of California • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageindustry • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageCalMatters’ 11th anniversary drive • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Echelman • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageU.S. Department of Education • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageAngelica Muro • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageArnold Schwarzenegger • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Ashton • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Myers • 50 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageKQED • 13 words • 0.0% coverageSan Francisco Chronicle • 22 words • 100.0% coveragePolitico • 8 words • 0.0% coverageThe Wall Street Journal • 18 words • 100.0% coverageThe Modesto Focus • 20 words • 0.0% coverageLAist • 12 words • 0.0% coverageAbridged • 13 words • 0.0% coverageThe Orange County Register • 20 words • 100.0% coverageVoice of San Diego • 12 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

David Myers

100%flagged-word coverage
50 attributed words14% of attributed speech80% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Indoctrination+94.7 ptsWriter: 5.3%David Myers: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+90.2 ptsWriter: 9.8%David Myers: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -9.2 ptsWriter: 9.2%David Myers: 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.