Testimony Deck — “Who Is the Customer?” (slide outline)
Cory Parent · Select Committee on Data Centers · June 1, 2026 — the visual companion to the written testimony.
Source: bosc-testimony-deck-2026-06-01.pdf (13 slides)
- Title — Select Committee on Data Centers · “Who Is the Customer? Beneficial-ownership disclosure in Ohio data center development.”
- One argument, made plainly — Ohio extends public benefits without requiring developers to disclose who they are. Not opposed; bills (HB 706, HB 646, forecast bill) get a lot right; one question unanswered.
- The Gap — Ohio subsidizes developers it cannot name (shell company holds the deed, signs the agreement, takes the abatement).
- The Definition — only R.C. 122.175 definition; adopt one capacity-based, ownership-aggregating standard.
- Disclosure is the foundation, not a footnote — cost causation, anti-speculation, PJM identity-sharing, the 25-MW threshold all depend on it.
- The Economics Ownership Hides — commercial vs government cloud; the 20–30% GovCloud premium; FedRAMP / DoD impact levels.
- The Economics Ownership Hides — continued — IL5/IL6 enclaves are structurally closed to local enterprise; enclave vs cluster.
- What extraction looks like — and what reciprocity looks like — Ohio ($5.1B → 356 jobs / ~$281.9M loss) vs Virginia/Loudoun (~38% of general fund); community-benefits agreements.
- A technical caution on the sales-tax-exemption forecast — 3–5 yr refresh cycles + AI-class rack costs understate the realized exemption.
- The bills already in motion get a great deal right — HB 706 (cost causation), HB 646 (study), EFIA (speculation).
- A warning on HB 646 — a study commission without independent facility-level data is vulnerable to capture.
- Recommendations — the six asks (beneficial-ownership disclosure first).
- Close — “Ohio can welcome this industry —” and complete the framework by requiring disclosure.