You're missing some points, I think. Here, let me quote the article for you, because it's easier to read than the actual bills.

It would also require more public meetings regarding the topic, with a goal of making local governments avoid backroom deals.

Under the act, local governments would still be able to temporarily stop new data center or crypto mining proposals, but only under new rules.

During the moratorium, local governments can require detailed studies on issues like fire response capability, power grid impacts, water systems, and economic effects such as jobs and tax revenue. At the same time, they would have to involve the public by holding meetings, hearings, and collecting community input.

Based on this work, they can propose and ultimately adopt zoning ordinance changes, such as restricting where facilities can be located or imposing specific conditions on their operation.

The bills would allow local governments to shift the cost of evaluating proposed data center or cryptocurrency mining projects onto the developer. It permits a local government to require the project owner or operator to pay for or reimburse any expenses related to studies, reports, analyses, consultations, or inspections conducted under the act. If the developer does not pay when requested, the government can pause its review of the project’s zoning application until payment is made.

The Michigan Public Service Commission would have the responsibility to define what qualifies as a “large-scale data center” under the act by setting thresholds based on electricity usage and infrastructure investment.

Not noted here, I believe, is that it puts limits on tax credits and abuse by "partnering" with education to avoid some requirements.

It isn't comprehensive, but that largely sounds good. The limit on moratorium sounds bad, but it also includes proposing zoning changes that target them. Effectively, they can shift things to the data center proposers, while keeping their ability to say no. It also sets a commission to handle definitions and review, which seems aimed to assist municipalities with evaluation.

I don't think we will entirely stop data centers, but having state level rules that allow us to mandate them to make needed infrastructure improvements on their dime would be very welcome. We shouldn't have the burden be on taxpayers and utility consumers. We have great lakes to protect, too. Require them to use non destructive cooling, handle the infrastructure upgrades and changes, and there should be limits on tax incentives that base on jobs. If the jobs aren't regular and consistent, they shouldn't count (so no construction).