Four weeks later, Fife has proposed a moratorium citing data centers using 5 million gallons of water per day. We estimate this one as using only 5,000 gallons — a baseball field uses more.
I appreciate Council member’s Fife approach to this issue - it shows the complexity of the situation. Yes, the downtown Behring proposal is for a small center intended to serve and support the creation of jobs in nearby buildings - jobs that would be in Oakland. This is very different from the mammoth data centers you see in other parts of the country that power other communities and cities and create almost no jobs for the local jurisdiction in which they’re located. While I think the Behring proposal should proceed I also think Oakland needs a strict policy on the larger mega data centers. This Behring proposal has forced the issue, which is good. I hope the planning department catches up soon on how to classify mega data centers. I think there needs to be some sort of findings for approval that quantify the jobs created by the data center for the local jurisdiction .
Sam, I appreciate your perspective, but I think this interpretation skips over the chronology.
Fife didn’t simply inherit a complicated issue and then thoughtfully call for a pause. She appeared at the initial press conference with Behring and publicly defended the project, emphasizing that it was “not the large-scale mega facility” people were worried about. She spoke about how this project was different and tried to inoculate it against the very criticisms that would later become the basis for her moratorium.
So where was the moratorium then?
It came weeks later, after the public backlash had begun. That matters.
I’m not suggesting elected officials can never change their minds. Of course they can. But when they do, we should be willing to acknowledge the change rather than rewrite the chronology into a story of consistent leadership.
And that’s why I have trouble giving her credit for now presenting herself as the person protecting Oakland from a problem she had publicly stood beside and defended weeks earlier.
You can support the moratorium and still acknowledge that contradiction. In fact, intellectual honesty requires it.
I respect that you see it differently. I just don’t think the public record supports giving her a pass on how dramatically her posture changed.
The moratorium is a good idea. Not permanent, but a few questions need to be answered.
According to this post:
Behring told NBC Bay Area that electrical power would not be a problem for the Oakland site because California discards about 3.5 million megawatts of solar and other clean energy each year for lack of storage.
Does that means that Behring would only be consuming excess power which is produced? How will Behring avoid consuming power during peak periods when California is drawing energy from the grid. Oakland could see reduced energy costs for homes and businesses if Behring uses energy only at times when excess energy is produced, and curtails drawing energy during times of peak demand. But I don't see this plan mentioned yet.
I want to hear from Lawrence Berkeley Labs' Center of Expertise for Data Center Energy? They claim expertise in helping communities plan for data centers. What can Oakland do to make data centers work with the city of Oakland, and avoid increased electricity costs?
EBMUD produces a lot of recycled water, but only supplies the recycled water to limited areas. Currently EBMUD does not supply recycled water near the proposed Behring project. Can data centers use recycled water for cooling? Could the recycled water supply Behring? Oakland has limited water, which may be reduced with climate change. We should be cautious about adding data centers even if each one is the equivalent of a baseball field. Baseball fields use a lot of water.
Important article, thank you. Fife moratorium must be stopped. This is the 21st Century and it is important for Oakland's development to have the newest of techology. As you point out, Oakland only has one data center, compared with the many across California.
According to this article "Virginia Is the Canary in the Coal Mine When It Comes to Data Centers: The Canary Is Singing" -Virginia has also done what the moratorium campaign insists cannot be done. It engineered the water problem downward instead of legislating the industry out of the state.
I would also like to share more detail on where the anti AI campaign is coming from: Monday, September 7th. Politico breaks the story via two anonymous sources that King Charles is quietly planning to bring together roughly thirty of the biggest names in AI. Not a government summit. A private, off the record, sit-down at a Scottish country estate. It had clearly been planned prior. On September 8th — Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon walks away from the company with great fanfare. First he gives the Wall Street Journal an in person interview the very same day. Then his X post, from an account with no subscribers, goes viral with over 150 million views. It was largely boosted by a grouping of AI insiders, largely from Oxford, who wanted to promote Coxon’s ai-doom narrative. Mindy Pechenuk, for Oakland Mayor 2026.
I appreciate Council member’s Fife approach to this issue - it shows the complexity of the situation. Yes, the downtown Behring proposal is for a small center intended to serve and support the creation of jobs in nearby buildings - jobs that would be in Oakland. This is very different from the mammoth data centers you see in other parts of the country that power other communities and cities and create almost no jobs for the local jurisdiction in which they’re located. While I think the Behring proposal should proceed I also think Oakland needs a strict policy on the larger mega data centers. This Behring proposal has forced the issue, which is good. I hope the planning department catches up soon on how to classify mega data centers. I think there needs to be some sort of findings for approval that quantify the jobs created by the data center for the local jurisdiction .
Sam, I appreciate your perspective, but I think this interpretation skips over the chronology.
Fife didn’t simply inherit a complicated issue and then thoughtfully call for a pause. She appeared at the initial press conference with Behring and publicly defended the project, emphasizing that it was “not the large-scale mega facility” people were worried about. She spoke about how this project was different and tried to inoculate it against the very criticisms that would later become the basis for her moratorium.
So where was the moratorium then?
It came weeks later, after the public backlash had begun. That matters.
I’m not suggesting elected officials can never change their minds. Of course they can. But when they do, we should be willing to acknowledge the change rather than rewrite the chronology into a story of consistent leadership.
And that’s why I have trouble giving her credit for now presenting herself as the person protecting Oakland from a problem she had publicly stood beside and defended weeks earlier.
You can support the moratorium and still acknowledge that contradiction. In fact, intellectual honesty requires it.
I respect that you see it differently. I just don’t think the public record supports giving her a pass on how dramatically her posture changed.
The moratorium is a good idea. Not permanent, but a few questions need to be answered.
According to this post:
Behring told NBC Bay Area that electrical power would not be a problem for the Oakland site because California discards about 3.5 million megawatts of solar and other clean energy each year for lack of storage.
Does that means that Behring would only be consuming excess power which is produced? How will Behring avoid consuming power during peak periods when California is drawing energy from the grid. Oakland could see reduced energy costs for homes and businesses if Behring uses energy only at times when excess energy is produced, and curtails drawing energy during times of peak demand. But I don't see this plan mentioned yet.
I want to hear from Lawrence Berkeley Labs' Center of Expertise for Data Center Energy? They claim expertise in helping communities plan for data centers. What can Oakland do to make data centers work with the city of Oakland, and avoid increased electricity costs?
https://datacenters.lbl.gov/
EBMUD produces a lot of recycled water, but only supplies the recycled water to limited areas. Currently EBMUD does not supply recycled water near the proposed Behring project. Can data centers use recycled water for cooling? Could the recycled water supply Behring? Oakland has limited water, which may be reduced with climate change. We should be cautious about adding data centers even if each one is the equivalent of a baseball field. Baseball fields use a lot of water.
https://www.ebmud.com/water/recycled-water/current-recycled-water-users/east-bayshore
Important article, thank you. Fife moratorium must be stopped. This is the 21st Century and it is important for Oakland's development to have the newest of techology. As you point out, Oakland only has one data center, compared with the many across California.
According to this article "Virginia Is the Canary in the Coal Mine When It Comes to Data Centers: The Canary Is Singing" -Virginia has also done what the moratorium campaign insists cannot be done. It engineered the water problem downward instead of legislating the industry out of the state.
I would also like to share more detail on where the anti AI campaign is coming from: Monday, September 7th. Politico breaks the story via two anonymous sources that King Charles is quietly planning to bring together roughly thirty of the biggest names in AI. Not a government summit. A private, off the record, sit-down at a Scottish country estate. It had clearly been planned prior. On September 8th — Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon walks away from the company with great fanfare. First he gives the Wall Street Journal an in person interview the very same day. Then his X post, from an account with no subscribers, goes viral with over 150 million views. It was largely boosted by a grouping of AI insiders, largely from Oxford, who wanted to promote Coxon’s ai-doom narrative. Mindy Pechenuk, for Oakland Mayor 2026.