To those who wish to restrict America’s energy future ...

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Michael D. Farkas is the founder and CEO of NextNRG Inc., a vertically integrated energy platform focused on EV charging, mobile fueling and AI-driven grid analytics.

Dear leaders now slowing, pausing or restricting large energy-intensive development:

America’s energy system is under strain at precisely the moment it should be accelerating. The average age of large power transformers on the North American grid puts them near the end of their 40-year design life. The Department of Energy has previously estimated that roughly 70% of transmission lines and transformers are already more than 25 years old. At the same time, demand is rising sharply. The Energy Information Administration projects U.S. electricity demand will grow 1.2% in 2026 and 3.3% in 2027 — marking the strongest multi-year increase in decades.

The surge is being driven in large part by data centers and advanced computing. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimates that U.S. data-center electricity consumption could climb from 176 terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2023 to as much as 580 TWh by 2028 — potentially accounting for up to 12% of total U.S. electricity use. This translates into massive new load requirements, tightening reserve margins and increasing costs for households and businesses.

Yet instead of responding with expansion and modernization, some states are moving to restrict growth. Maine has advanced a temporary limit on large data centers, halting approvals for projects above 20 megawatts (MW) until late 2027. New York and Maryland have proposed similar moratoriums. By early 2026, at least 11 states had introduced legislation or restrictions targeting data center development, with additional local pushback spreading nationwide.

This trend is not isolated — it is becoming a national pattern of contraction at exactly the wrong time.

It is also unfolding during a global race for leadership in artificial intelligence and advanced technologies. Federal policymakers have already acknowledged that energy capacity is now a strategic constraint. America’s grid expansion has lagged for decades, while competitors like China have scaled infrastructure rapidly. Regulatory complexity and permitting delays continue to slow U.S. progress, making it difficult to build the energy systems required to support AI, robotics and next-generation industry.

The implication is straightforward: the United States cannot lead in AI if energy becomes the bottleneck.

From an industry perspective, these constraints are already visible. Even with advanced tools, including AI-driven systems designed to navigate federal procurement, companies face slow, fragmented processes burdened by excessive documentation and regulatory hurdles. Bidding, compliance and approval cycles often take months or years — timelines that are incompatible with the urgency of current energy demands.

The federal government has shown that it can act quickly when necessary. Existing acquisition rules allow agencies to bypass standard procedures in cases of “unusual and compelling urgency.” During the COVID-19 crisis, the Defense Production Act was used to rapidly scale production of critical supplies. Similar measures were deployed during the infant formula shortage to stabilize supply chains.

These precedents demonstrate that when delay is treated as a risk, government can respond with speed and flexibility. Energy infrastructure now requires that same level of urgency.

Recent federal actions suggest growing recognition of the issue. A national energy emergency declaration and new Defense Production Act determinations have highlighted the role of financing gaps, regulatory delays and market barriers in slowing infrastructure deployment. Meanwhile, major technology companies have committed to funding the power infrastructure required for their operations, signaling a willingness from the private sector to shoulder responsibility.

However, federal intent alone is not enough. State and local processes remain slow and inconsistent, often blocking or delaying projects critical to national capacity.

At the same time, large sums of capital have been allocated to energy initiatives without corresponding speed in execution. Reviews of federal loan programs have underscored the gap between funding commitments and real-world deployment. The lesson is clear: investment without urgency does not solve supply constraints.

What the country needs now is a coordinated national framework — a modern energy policy designed for today’s realities.

Such a framework should prioritize speed, scale and reliability. It should streamline permitting and procurement for essential infrastructure, including microgrids, substations, transformer replacements, local generation, storage systems and transmission upgrades. It should establish clear and accelerated review timelines across agencies, reducing uncertainty and delay.

Financial mechanisms must also align with deployment goals. Long-term, low-cost federal loans, targeted grants, and performance-based incentives can help bring projects online faster. Procurement systems should be modernized to ensure capable builders are not trapped in prolonged bidding cycles.

Equally important, policy should reward states that expand energy supply while discouraging measures that restrict growth without addressing underlying shortages.

At its core, the current challenge is being misdiagnosed. This is not a demand problem — it is a supply problem. Rising demand reflects economic transformation. Artificial intelligence, robotics and electrification are reshaping industries and driving new energy needs. These trends are not optional; they are indicators of where the global economy is heading.

The grid, however, is signaling that it is not prepared to meet this future without significant acceleration.

Responding with moratoriums and delays does not solve the problem. It shifts it. Restricting visible growth does not reduce demand — it simply forces constraints elsewhere, raising costs and weakening competitiveness.

If the United States chooses to slow development while others expand, the consequences will extend beyond energy markets. They will affect technological leadership, industrial capacity and long-term economic strength.

The path forward is clear. Reduce unnecessary barriers. Accelerate infrastructure deployment. Expand supply. Invest in resilience. Modernize procurement.

Do not attempt to halt the future.

Power it.