Across the country, fear is growing that AI could soon outpace our ability to control it. In New York, the immediate question is whether we can control AI data center buildout before these noisy, power-hungry facilities overwhelm our communities.

The scale is startling. Already at least a dozen large-scale data centers are operating in New York, with 38 more in the queue. Collectively they seek more than 12 gigawatts of power, equal to roughly 70% of the electric demand of the entire state on an average day.

Gov. Kathy Hochul issued an executive order calling for a data center moratorium while the state studies the environmental impacts, calling it a step toward the “strongest standards in the nation.” But the text of her order does not match that rhetoric.

The moratorium is narrower than it sounds. It pauses state environmental permits, but local approvals can continue. Further, it makes critical safeguards optional. Data centers “may” (not must) be required to pay upfront for the grid upgrades they trigger. The plan “may” consider how ratepayers would be protected from costs when projects fall through.

Hochul’s executive order puts the Public Service Commission — an agency with expertise in utility regulation and grid planning — in charge of the environmental review. The Department of Environmental Conservation, the agency with actual expertise, is relegated to an undefined supporting role with no authority over the scope, methodology or findings of the environmental review.

The PSC’s draft environmental scoping plan shows why that choice is problematic. It reads more like a laundry list of topics than a serious plan for environmental analysis. It names water, air, noise, health, land use and cumulative impacts, but fails to say what data must be collected, what methods must be used, or what standards will determine whether an impact is significant. It promises that cumulative impacts will be addressed, but when describing the actual analysis, it says cumulative and indirect impacts “may” be identified and considered. It requires discussion of how to mitigate impacts but says measurable milestones and consequences when these protections are not maintained “may” be included. Important details concerning drinking-water impacts, multi-phased development, fire risks and more are repeatedly left to “may.”

Meanwhile, before the environmental analysis has even begun, the governor is encouraging communities that want to host data centers to seek benefits worth at least $1 million per megawatt. This sounds more like a bribe than good public policy. With data centers averaging 300 megawatts, that puts hundreds of millions of dollars on the table before the environmental costs are known.

This is especially troubling for disadvantaged communities, where the need for investment may be greatest. Environmental justice should not mean choosing between desperately needed financial resources and a dirtier, noisier, more industrialized community. Community benefits should follow a finding that a project is environmentally acceptable; they must not become an inducement for accepting harm.

None of this is what nation-leading oversight looks like. Strong regulation does not sideline the state’s environmental watchdog, make protections optional, weaken the environmental review and put a price on community acceptance before the environmental costs are understood. Unless New York sets truly strong statewide standards, this insatiable industry will do to our communities what we fear AI itself may do: evade the rules meant to control it.