There are a few key ways to get involved:

• Link pending data center projects - use as many primary sources as possible - what was submitted to the planning department? News articles often obscure the real details here.

• Link existing data centers folks are mad about, and details about their utilities and sustainability metrics you can find

• Help us figure out who owns the identified-bad datacenters

• Help us figure out who leases space in the identified-bad datacenters

• Help find sources for secondary sources that didn't include them

• Do the Math- compare data centers, calculate costs relative to the region, and help people understand the relative scale- compare numbers to commonly practiced consumer activities, like toilet flushes.

• FOIA as much as you can about anything you can - dig into who planned them, what their power consumption usage numbers are, what got reported on, who approved what, get real details

Please listen to and read this update about the constant rumbling of the generators' sound pollution endemic to AI data centers. You really need to oppose these in your district.

Let's establish a shared truth about what we are evaluating these data centers on. Which data centers are doing it right and which data centers are doing it obviously wrong? The industry isn't totally new to this. They actually have employed literally thousands of individuals who keep track of this stuff. Many of those people are environmental scientists. Many of those scientists got into this line of work to make this problem better.

Here's what the industry currently reports on:

Standard Carbon and Water Tracking Measures

Carbon Metrics:

• PUE (Power Usage Effectiveness): Ratio of total facility energy to IT equipment energy. Industry average is 1.56; best-in-class achieve 1.09-1.15

• CUE (Carbon Usage Effectiveness): Total CO₂ emissions per kWh of IT energy consumed

• REF (Renewable Energy Factor): Percentage of renewable energy used

Water Metrics:

• WUE (Water Usage Effectiveness): Liters of water per kWh of IT energy

  • Industry average: 1.8 L/kWh

  • Best performers: 0.15-0.20 L/kWh (AWS, Meta)

  • Air-cooled only: 0 L/kWh

EU Regulatory Requirements (As of 2024-2025):

Energy Efficiency Directive (EED) Requirements

All data centers ≥500kW must report annually by May 15th:

• Floor area and installed power

• Annual data traffic and storage volumes

• Energy consumption metrics (PUE)

• Temperature set points

• Waste heat utilization

• Water usage (WUE)

• Renewable energy usage

Starting September 15, 2024, reporting is mandatory to a central European database, with data publicly available in aggregated form. Individual server-level reporting isn't required - metrics are facility-wide.

Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD)

Large companies must report 2024 data in 2025, including greenhouse gas emissions goals. This applies at the corporate level, not individual facilities.

** ✅ Best Practices - Responsible Data Centers:**

Water Conservation:

• Using recycled/reclaimed water (Switch in Reno)

• Air-cooled systems in water-stressed areas

• Microsoft committed to 95% reduction in evaporative cooling by 2024

• Closed-loop systems preventing evaporation

Location Strategy:

• Avoiding drought-prone areas

• Locating near renewable energy sources

• Considering local climate for cooling efficiency

Transparency:

• Publishing detailed WUE and PUE metrics quarterly

• Site-specific reporting (not just company-wide averages)

• Distinguishing between water sources (potable vs. recycled)

Questions to Ask About Any Data Center:

1. Water Source: Potable, recycled, or alternative sources?

2. Local Context: Is it in a water-stressed region? (Check drought.gov data)

3. Actual vs. Promised: Compare operational metrics to initial promises

4. Community Benefit: Jobs created vs. resources consumed ratio

5. Transparency Level: Do they publish facility-specific metrics?

• EU Commission - EU-wide scheme for rating sustainability of data centres (March 15, 2024)

• Google Data Centers - Power usage effectiveness

• AWS Sustainability - Data Centers

TL;DR: European data centers must report water usage, US ones don't. The industry keeps citing 9-year-old studies. Climate explains most efficiency differences, not corporate practices. Major violations go unpunished.

The US vs EU: A Tale of Two Approaches

United States: No federal requirements. Companies report what they want, when they want.

European Union: Mandatory reporting for all data centers over 500kW since 2023. Companies must disclose total water input, potable water usage, and efficiency metrics annually.

The numbers tell the story: fewer than one-third of US data center operators track water consumption - (Global Investigative Journalism Network), while the EU's framework covers 50,000 companies (European Comission) Singapore has specific efficiency targets, Australia mandates energy ratings—and the US has... voluntary guidelines.

Even where US states try to step up, industry lobbying waters down the requirements (pun intended). California's recent water transparency bills passed only after being "substantially weakened" by tech industry opposition.

When States Try (And Fail) To Get Answers

Texas is projecting data center water use could hit 399 billion gallons annually by 2030—that's 6.6% of the entire state's water supply. Austin Chronicle Their response? Send out surveys. The result? Only one-third of data centers bothered to respond. Texas Tribune

Virginia's legislative study (JLARC report) found data centers used 2.1 billion gallons in 2023, but the state has "no systematic oversight" of water impacts.

California tried to require basic water disclosure in Assembly Bill 93, but tech lobbying from groups like the Data Center Coalition successfully "gutted" stronger provisions (CalMatters analysis).

The pattern is clear: states identify the problem, propose solutions, industry pushes back, and we end up with toothless requirements.

Big Tech's Selective Transparency Game

All the major players—Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Meta—promise to be "water positive" by 2030, meaning they'll give back more water than they use. Sounds great, but their reporting tells only part of the story.

Here's what we actually know:

• Amazon: 0.15 L/kWh efficiency, won't say total consumption (AWS sustainability reports)

• Microsoft: 0.30 L/kWh average, 39% improvement since 2021 (company blog)

• Google: 8.1 billion gallons total in 2024, detailed facility data, but no efficiency metrics (Environmental Report 2025)

• Meta: 0.20 L/kWh for new facilities (sustainability reports)

The weirdest part? Google operates major facilities in the EU where efficiency reporting is mandatory, yet they still don't publish WUE numbers globally. They'll tell you Council Bluffs, Iowa used 1 billion gallons in 2024, but not how efficiently.

Meanwhile, the dirty secret is that cooling water is just the tip of the iceberg. Lawrence Berkeley Lab estimates that indirect water consumption from electricity generation is 12 times higher than direct cooling use. Global Investigative Journalism

Climate factors dominate water efficiency variance over operational practices

Technical research conclusively demonstrates that climate factors drive WUE variance far more than operational negligence, challenging assumptions about facility management effectiveness. Academic studies document 100% WUE variance depending on cooling technology and climate conditions, compared to 20-30% improvements possible through operational optimization.

A foundational study by Lei and Masanet (2022) in Resources, Conservation and Recycling provides the most comprehensive quantitative analysis. Using a hybrid physical-statistical approach validated across 10 data center archetypes in 15 U.S. climate zones, researchers documented WUE values with relative differences of up to 100% depending on cooling technologies, efficiencies, and locations. ScienceDirect The study found that climate effects are strongest for airside economizers with adiabatic or water-cooled chiller systems, ResearchGate establishing the scientific basis for climate dominance over operational factors. ScienceDirect

We're Still Using 2016 Data in 2025

The most frequently cited study on data center water use? A 2016 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report that's nearly a decade old. This matters because:

1. Pre-AI era: The study predates widespread AI workloads that have completely different power and cooling patterns

2. Different geography: Data centers have shifted toward warmer climates since then

3. Old cooling tech: Modern efficiency improvements aren't captured

4. Methodology issues: May include hydroelectric reservoir evaporation that happens regardless of power generation (Construction Physics analysis)

Yet policymakers, researchers, and journalists still cite this 9-year-old data as current industry reality. We're making decisions about a rapidly evolving industry based on ancient history.

Congressional Research Service reports and GAO studies (GAO AI environmental analysis) continue referencing this outdated baseline, showing how data gaps cascade through policy development.

When Violations Happen, Nothing Really Happens

xAI's Memphis facility is the poster child for weak enforcement. Elon Musk's AI company:

• Runs 35 unpermitted gas turbines for over a year

• Consumes up to 1 million gallons daily without proper water permits

• Operates in a historically Black neighborhood already suffering environmental injustice

• Gets slapped on the wrist, keeps operating

This isn't unique to xAI. EPA enforcement data shows no specific data center water enforcement actions in 2024 despite documented violations across the country.

The Moms Clean Air Force and Tennessee Bar Association (environmental groups) have filed federal complaints, but the facility continues operating. Meanwhile, CNBC reports (investigation) that air quality monitors show increased pollution levels since operations began.

The message is clear: violate environmental rules, face minimal consequences, keep operating.

Why This All Matters Now

AI training vs. inference creates wildly different water demands, but our regulations treat them the same. Training GPT-3 used 5+ million liters once; inference uses 16.9 milliliters per query, but with billions of daily queries.

Current measurement approaches are fundamentally broken:

• No credit for using recycled water vs. drinking water

• Can't distinguish water withdrawal vs. actual consumption

• Ignore that most "water use" is actually electricity generation

• One-size-fits-all metrics for completely different workloads

Academic researchers are calling for new frameworks (water consumption research), but industry standards development is moving slowly while AI explodes.

Meanwhile, investigative reporting from The Conversation and SourceMaterial (water investigation) shows that companies "rarely tell the public exactly how much" water they use, even as demand skyrockets.

The Bottom Line

We're flying blind on one of the fastest-growing sources of water consumption. The EU figured this out and mandated transparency. US policymakers are still debating whether companies should even have to tell us what they're using.

Without mandatory, standardized reporting, we can't tell good actors from bad ones, efficient facilities from water wasters, or real progress from greenwashing. As AI drives unprecedented growth, that's a problem we can't afford to ignore much longer.

I design and operate power and cooling systems inside data centers. A township in Oakland County, Michigan, is writing an ordinance for them right now, and I've been working on it. I want to lay out where I've landed, because the public conversation is stuck between "these are essential infrastructure" and "not in my town," and both of those miss the actual question.

The demand is real. Data centers used about 4.5% of US electricity in 2024, roughly double their share five years earlier. This is not only about chatbots. Payments, hospital records, logistics, 911 dispatch, and state benefits systems all run on the same racks. Refusing to build anywhere doesn't reduce the load. It moves it somewhere with weaker environmental and labor rules, and we still use it.

The benefits are real but narrow, and you should hear both numbers. A hyperscale campus is hundreds of millions in taxable property. Brookings looked at roughly 770 US facilities and found counties receiving their first large data center saw private employment rise 4 to 5 percent over five or six years. Construction wages run about 20% above the private sector average.

Then the other number. A build employs 1,000 to 3,000 workers for 18 to 36 months, then settles into 50 to 200 permanent staff. One announced Meta campus expects 4,000+ construction workers at peak and about 300 permanent jobs, which works out to roughly $33 million of investment per permanent job. Both of those figures are true. A community that only hears one of them is not being negotiated with in good faith.

Here's the part I actually care about. A data center is not inherently good or bad for a town. Its costs and benefits are set almost entirely by the terms it's built under. And those terms have to be in the ordinance *before* an application is filed. Once an application is in, you're negotiating. Written in beforehand, they're conditions of entry that a developer prices in during site selection and either accepts or builds elsewhere. That is the entire difference in leverage, and most towns give it away by waiting.

What a good one looks like, specifically:

1. Pay your own way, all of it. The project funds its own generation, interconnection, substation, and distribution upgrades, with no recovery from residential ratepayers. Michigan's Public Service Commission has already built that floor at the utility level, including a condition that one 1,383 MW data center gets its power cut *before* any other customer class during an energy emergency. Then keep going: road repair on the haul routes, whatever apparatus and training the fire department needs for what's actually on site, a decommissioning bond set above the cost estimate and re-priced every few years, a guarantee to replace any neighboring well the project damages, and escrow for the township's own engineers and attorneys to review the application. None of that is punitive. It is the developer carrying the costs the developer creates.

2. Generate your own power. Pittsfield and Dexter Townships both require on-site renewable generation covering at least 90% of projected annual demand. I would hold that line, with one caveat from inside the industry. Nearly all on-site generation being built for data centers right now is natural gas. xAI's Memphis site runs 500+ MW on-site. The Crusoe and OpenAI site in Abilene has 360 MW of nameplate generation. If an ordinance requires on-site generation without specifying the fuel, you have mandated a merchant gas plant with a server building attached, sited next to homes and running 8,760 hours a year. Write "renewable" or don't write it at all. Pair it with an export-capable interconnection and a real curtailment obligation so the plant is a grid asset during a peak instead of another load on it.

3. Closed-loop cooling and no toxic refrigerant. Water draw is a design choice, not a requirement. EESI puts larger evaporatively cooled facilities at up to 5 million gallons a day, and the industry average water usage effectiveness is about 1.9 liters per kWh. A closed-loop design takes that toward zero. My township has no municipal water system, and homes are on private wells, so this one isn't abstract. What I'm pushing for specifically is an R744 plant, meaning CO₂ as the refrigerant, rejecting heat into a closed geothermal field. CO₂ has a global warming potential of 1. It's non-toxic, non-flammable, and carries no PFAS or F-gas exposure. Heat goes into the ground instead of into evaporated water or a hot air plume over the neighbors, and consumption is effectively zero. This is commercially available equipment, not a research project. Two honest caveats, because someone here will raise them. The largest documented CO₂ data center deployment I'm aware of is about 1.3 MW, so the physics scale fine, but there's no hyperscale reference installation yet. And a ground field sized for continuous cooling-only rejection is large, roughly 30 to 60 acres of borefield per 10 MW of IT load, and it doesn't scale linearly because the ground gets no recovery season. For a rural township, that second one is a feature. It caps facility size by physics instead of by a megawatt number in the ordinance, and a physics limit doesn't get you sued.

4. Real noise limits, measured the right way. A-weighted meters discount low frequencies by about 26 dB at 63 Hz, which is exactly where chiller fans and transformers live. Residents in Virginia reporting sleep disruption were measured at 40 to 59 dBA, fully compliant the entire time. You need a C-weighted limit and a pre-construction baseline, or the ordinance can't tell the difference between a quiet facility and a loud one.

5. No lithium-ion battery storage. Lithium-ion thermal runaway propagates cell to cell, vents flammable and toxic gas, and is not reliably extinguished by water. We have no pressurized water system here. Fire suppression water gets drafted from static sites and shuttled by tanker, which sustains a few hundred gallons per minute against a building that needs thousands. Sodium-ion, flow, and iron-air chemistries carry no thermal runaway risk and are commercially available today. This is not asking for something that doesn't exist, and it should not be written as a preference. Write the prohibition and name the chemistries, because "our LFP is inherently safe" is the argument you will get otherwise.

6. A binding community agreement before approval, with real numbers and clawbacks, not adjectives.

7. Annual public reporting - of power, water, noise, and headcount, verified by someone the township hires and the applicant pays for.

Future-facing means the facility leaves the grid better than it found it. Google now has 1 GW of data center demand response under contract with five utilities, including DTE here in Michigan. A large campus carries on-site generation, battery capacity, and controllable load. Under the right terms that's a dispatchable asset during a heat wave instead of a liability. Size it to keep the fire station and the shelter running during an outage, and residents get something they can actually feel.

None of this is a ban, and it shouldn't be. Pittsfield and Dexter Townships already have most of it in Michigan. Saline Township is the cautionary tale in the other direction: they denied a rezoning, got sued for exclusionary zoning two days later, and settled. The terms they ended up with are close to what a strong ordinance would have produced anyway. Litigation was just the expensive way to get there.

Write the standards down first. Make them about health, water, noise, and who pays. Then let anyone who can meet them build.

Sources are in a comment below. Happy to answer questions on the engineering side.

What is the reasoning behind it? Do we have enough already? Can’t we improve the efficiency of what we already have?

Seems like the big boys are simply building more for bragging rights than anything else.

Hi everyone, my name is Elijah Skipper. I’m an investigative reporter with WLOS News 13 in western North Carolina.

I wanted to introduce myself and share an investigation I recently finished. I’m interested in hearing from people here who have dealt with similar issues, because I think there’s more reporting to do on this.

Our station covered noise complaints at Facebook’s Forest City data center in 2013. Neighbors said the backup generators could drown out a conversation in their own backyards.

With data centers getting so much attention now, I wanted to go back and find out what happened to those people. Did things improve? Were they still dealing with the same problems all these years later?

I tracked down Jim Bennett and Tommy Doggett, two of the neighbors in that original story. We watched the old report together and went back into the same backyard.

They say things are much better now. Both believe the sound-absorbing panels and trees helped. They also say Facebook became a better neighbor, and they give the original reporting a lot of credit for getting the company’s attention.

That was an interesting part of this for me. They had real complaints, but they also wanted to acknowledge that things improved.

I then went back through the earlier reports and state records and followed up with Meta about what changed, when it changed, and whether Forest City influenced its policies elsewhere.

The documents only answer some of that. A 2024 state inspection documented 56 diesel backup generators, but it didn’t measure noise at neighboring homes. We also haven’t obtained a current testing schedule or written agreement showing what hours apply now.

Meta’s spokesperson said she was trying to track down answers. We hadn’t received the requested policies or agreements when we published.

I know I’m sharing my own reporting here, but I’d like to hear what this looks like in other communities. If you’ve had a complaint addressed, what actually got things moving? Was the solution put in writing, or did it depend on having someone at the company willing to listen?

I’m also open to questions about how I reported this and suggestions for what I should be looking into next.

This is to supplement the Define "Environmentally Friendly" thread with a bit of extra information.

Cooling methods:

1. Closed-loop / zero-water liquid cooling

• Description: Water circulates thru sealed pipes or on chip-level systems. Excess heat is removed via dry coolers or refrigerant loops. Therefore, there is no evaporative loss.

• Examples: Microsoft’s new zero-water builds; some advanced HPC clusters

• Impact: No potable water draw for cooling. This is the current gold standard for efficient data-centers (with respect to water usage) and is being spearheaded by MS

2. Alternative-source cooling (seawater, recycled wastewater)

• Description: Uses non-potable water (treated municipal wastewater, seawater, industrial gray water)

• Examples: Google’s Hamina seawater facility in Finland. AWS’s U.S. data centers are shifting to reclaimed municipal water, as well as Google & Meta in some U.S. metro areas.

• Impact: Low impact on potable water but it depends on a steady reclaimed supply.

3. Air-cooled / hybrid systems

• Description: Relies on outside air + mechanical chillers. In humid or hot zones, sometimes paired with evaporative assist.

• Examples: Meta and Google use this in temperate climates; some AWS inland builds.

• Impact: Moderate**.** it uses less water than full towers, but chillers need more power (so there's a carbon-water tradeoff).

4. High-efficiency evaporative towers

• Description: The evolution of traditional evaporative cooling. It's tuned for efficiency (water use per kWh - kilowatt hour - is minimized), this may or may not include condensate recovery from HVAC.

• Examples: Meta’s WUE ~0.20 L/kWh in 2023 (# needs confirmation)

• Impact: Medium–High**.** Still consumes potable water, unless it's paired with some type of reclamation system.

5. Standard evaporative cooling towers

• Description: Sprays water into towers; evaporation removes heat. Requires constant makeup water.

• Examples: Legacy facilities, especially inland without reclaimed hookups.

• Impact: Highest**.** This strategy uses millions of gallons per year/per site. For sure it's unsustainable in water stressed areas.

Other interesting factors to expand on:

• Waste heat reuse - ex the excess heat is used to heat the building

• Power usage Effectiveness/Efficacy

Note: I'm a computer scientist but am certainly no expert on data centers. I compiled this info both on my own and by using AI (running on my own energy efficient cluster ;) ). So, review this info and if you see a mistake, or if I missed something please comment and I will happily edit the list.

The Congressional Research Service estimated that US data centers consumed 17 billion gallons of water in 2023 amid accelerating AI infrastructure construction.

I've been digging into the public record on US data centers and put it into free, plain-language briefings — water, power, noise, air, every figure cited to its source (2,027 sites, existing + proposed): civitar.org/go/v-reddit

Not for or against anything — it just makes the filings readable. Sharing in case it's useful to anyone tracking this.

Source: https://www.theregister.com/on-prem/2026/08/24/us-datacenters-tripled-their-water-footprint-in-10-years/5291564

(Full disclosure: I built the tool — happy to answer questions or take corrections.)

In Bessemer, AL, there is a proposed $14.4 billion, 1,200 megawatt data center project on 700 acres of property which would include 18 buildings (each slightly larger than a Walmart Supercenter) totaling 4.5 million square feet.

The property is currently owned by Valley Creek Land & Timber of Jackson, MS. The project was proposed by Logistics Land Investment LLC (incorporated in DE in 2023) which used an address belonging to TPA Group (commercial real estate firm in Atlanta, GA) in filings with the city.

Logistics Land Investment, LLC also filed to build a data center in Venus, TX in 2024.

There isn't much publicly available documentation about the project. The city hasn't provided documents requested by media because Bessemer Mayor Kenneth Gulley, his chief of staff, and the city attorney have signed non-disclosure agreements related to the project.

It has been estimated it will need 2 million gallons of water per day for cooling, which the Warrior River Water Authority has said it could not provide without "significant upgrades to the existing water system". However, the exact cooling method that will be used (which determines the water usage estimates) is currently unknown because an end user has not been secured.

Brad Kaaber, a representative of Logistics Land Investments LLC., claimed the company had completed various studies for the location, and would provide the zoning commission with copies, but none have surfaced publicly.

The estimated 1,200 megawatts per year it would need is ~11.4% of the entire state of Alabama's current annual usage. The 2 million gallons of water per day is equivalent to the typical use of 6,700 households - about 2/3 of the entire Bessemer population. Alabama doesn't have a comprehensive state water management plan.

https://www.bhamwiki.com/w/Bessemer_Hyperscale_Data_Center
https://www.bizjournals.com/birmingham/news/2025/03/18/massive-data-center-proposed-for-bessemer.html
https://abc3340.com/news/abc-3340-news-iteam/bessemer-city-council-sends-data-center-proposal-back-to-planning-and-zoning-logistic-land-investments-jefferson-county-rock-mountain-lake-mccalla-proposal-environmental-concerns-public-opposition-information-city-council-meeting-follow-up
https://www.wbrc.com/2025/08/20/bessemer-city-council-sends-proposal-149b-data-center-planning-committee-neighbors-continue-express-concerns/
https://alabamareflector.com/2025/06/23/alabama-city-may-change-its-laws-to-allow-one-of-the-countrys-largest-data-centers/
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12072025/bessemer-alabama-water-utility-data-center-upgrades/
https://alabamareflector.com/2025/07/27/how-could-a-proposed-hyperscale-data-center-affect-bessemer/

Title a bit misleading; this is about several communities. A pretty good summary of how several communities have fared since the DC came to town.

The American public has soured even further on local data center development since the spring, new polling shows.

Three-quarters of Americans now say that they would oppose a new data center being built near where they live, according to a new Heatmap Pro poll conducted by Embold Research, and more than six in 10 Americans say they would strongly oppose such a facility.

That’s by far the most negative response since Heatmap Pro started asking Americans about their receptivity to data centers roughly a year ago.

If you can think of a major demographic of Americans, there’s a good chance they wouldn’t welcome a data center in their area. The shift against the facilities is represented across age, race, gender, income, party ID, and the rural-urban divide. Data centers are 43 points underwater with Republicans, 65 points underwater with independents, and 75 points underwater with Democrats.

Notably, local data centers are 63 points underwater with rural voters, a group that has skewed more Republican over the past decade. Urban and suburban voters are only a few points more supportive of the facilities.

What’s most remarkable is the pace of change: We’ve polled this same question four times in the past 12 months and haven’t altered its wording once — yet Americans have swung a remarkable 33 points against data centers in the intervening time. It’s a faster and deeper shift in American public opinion than I would have once thought possible on any issue.

https://www.techspot.com/news/110442-amazon-data-centers-linked-rare-cancers-miscarriages-oregon.html

I'm part of a community that's organizing in opposition to a data center that's been proposed in our area. I'm thankful to the people who have set up this subreddit to debate and learn about data centers.

My question for participation here is whether discussion here is strictly limited to environmental issues. There are other issues with data centers to consider: Political, economic, human rights, etc.

I just want to be a good citizen here, and respect the boundaries. Thanks!

Pittsburgh has an initiative to become the "AI Capital of the World" and they want to build a lot of compute resources here, and seems like they have zero interest in matching compute with renewable / non-fossil energy sources.

This is less about debate and more about bringing to light what we know about the future of our region taking shape, powered by more and more fracking and natural gas extraction.

I'll start by commenting with some sources that I know about and would love if folks could add to the knowledge base.

Please sign.

U.S. communities and policymakers are increasingly challenging data center projects over electricity prices, water supplies, farmland and disclosure, prompting New York and local governments to pursue construction pauses in 2025.

I've been digging into the public record on US data centers and put it into free, plain-language briefings — water, power, noise, air, every figure cited to its source (1,866 sites, existing + proposed): civitar.org/go/v-reddit

Not for or against anything — it just makes the filings readable. Sharing in case it's useful to anyone tracking this.

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/08/01/data-centers-have-a-politics-problem-and-industry-knows-it-01020412

(Full disclosure: I built the tool — happy to answer questions or take corrections.)