AI Data Center Site Selection Transparency Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. McIver, LaMonica [D-NJ-10]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 23, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to increase transparency and community involvement in the siting of AI-focused data centers by requiring early public disclosure of project details and environmental impacts, alongside restrictions on NDAs.
What it actually does
This bill mandates that developers of AI-focused data centers disclose specific information to local elected officials and the public at least 180 days before taking a definitive step to establish such a center. The required disclosures include the proposed location, estimated resource needs, and environmental impact. It also imposes community engagement requirements, limits the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), and requires an independent environmental impact analysis.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is crucial for empowering local communities and ensuring environmental protection in the face of rapid AI infrastructure expansion. They contend that early and comprehensive disclosure allows for informed public discourse, prevents developers from operating in secrecy, and enables communities to plan for the significant resource demands and environmental effects of large AI data centers, fostering responsible development.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that these stringent disclosure requirements and lengthy lead times could stifle innovation and economic growth by imposing significant regulatory burdens and costs on AI data center developers. They may contend that the requirements could delay projects, make the U.S. less competitive in AI infrastructure development, and potentially lead developers to seek locations with fewer regulatory hurdles, rather than improving local engagement.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within the given timeframe.
Section 2(a)(1)(A)
Mandatory Pre-Development Disclosure
This provision requires any entity intending to establish, operate, or own an AI-focused data center to disclose the proposed location, estimated resource needs, and environmental impact to relevant local elected officials and the public via a press release. This disclosure must occur at least 180 days before the developer takes a 'definitive step' towards establishing the data center.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is essential for transparency, allowing communities ample time to understand and respond to the potential impacts of AI data centers before significant irreversible commitments are made. This proactive approach fosters trust and enables more collaborative development.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that a 180-day pre-disclosure requirement is overly burdensome and could create unnecessary delays in project development, potentially deterring investment in AI infrastructure. They may argue that such a long lead time could expose proprietary business plans prematurely.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the public's right to know and participate in local development decisions against the potential for increased regulatory hurdles and project delays for developers.
Section 2(a)(1)(B)
Mandatory Community Engagement
This section requires developers to engage local media, post on social media, send direct mail notices in affected areas, and post physical signage at the proposed site. Furthermore, all materials must be provided in multiple languages, including English, Spanish, and other commonly spoken languages in the affected area, to ensure broad accessibility.
Section 2(a)(1)(C)-(D)
Restrictions on Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs)
This provision limits the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) during the process of establishing an AI-focused data center and explicitly prohibits their use with respect to any government entity or public resources. This aims to prevent developers from using NDAs to conceal information from the public or government bodies involved in the approval process.
Section 2(a)(3)
Independent Environmental Impact Analysis
This provision mandates that an independent third party, funded by the developer, conduct the environmental impact analysis required under Section 2(a)(1)(A)(ii)(II). This ensures that the assessment of environmental effects is objective and not influenced by the developer's interests.
Section 2(b)
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement
This provision designates any violation of the disclosure and engagement requirements as an 'unfair or deceptive act or practice' under the Federal Trade Commission Act. This grants the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the authority to enforce these new requirements using its existing powers, jurisdiction, and duties, including imposing penalties.
Defines 'definitive step to establish an AI-focused data center' as an overt, verifiable action demonstrating significant financial or legal commitment. It includes specific examples such as executing binding purchase agreements for land, signing agreements with electric utilities for high-voltage power, commencing substantial on-site physical improvements, submitting final site plan applications, or issuing non-cancelable purchase orders for long-lead infrastructure items.
Section 2(c)(3)
Why it matters:This level of detail in definitions is standard legislative practice to provide clarity and avoid ambiguity in legal interpretation, rather than being evasive.
Case for: Supporters would argue that a precise definition of 'definitive step' is essential to provide clear guidance to developers and enforcement agencies, preventing disputes over when disclosure obligations are triggered. This clarity ensures consistent application of the law.
Case against: Critics might argue that even with specific examples, the definition could still be subject to interpretation, potentially leading to legal challenges or developers structuring their early activities to avoid triggering the disclosure requirement until later in the process. The broadness of 'substantial on-site physical improvements' could be a point of contention.
Estimated impact: This definition directly controls the timing and effectiveness of all pre-development disclosure requirements, significantly impacting developer timelines and community awareness.
Defines 'AI-focused data center' broadly to include any facility, campus, structure, or portion thereof, whether newly constructed, expanded, retrofitted, leased, or operated, that is specifically designed, configured, or materially modified to support AI systems. It includes facilities housing high-density GPUs/TPUs, requiring specialized electrical load/cooling/water for AI, or marketed for AI computing capacity.
Section 2(c)(1)
Why it matters:The detailed scope is standard for new regulatory frameworks to prevent loopholes, rather than being evasive.
Case for: Proponents would argue that a broad and inclusive definition is necessary to capture the full range of facilities that contribute to the environmental and resource impacts of AI, preventing developers from re-labeling or modifying projects to avoid disclosure.
Case against: Critics might argue that the definition is too broad, potentially encompassing facilities that have only a minor AI component or are not primarily 'AI-focused,' leading to over-regulation. The inclusion of 'leased' or 'operated' facilities could also create compliance complexities for entities not directly involved in construction.
Estimated impact: This definition determines the scope of entities and projects subject to the bill's requirements, significantly expanding the reach beyond just new, purpose-built AI data centers.
Establishes that if more than one covered entity is involved in the development, ownership, or operation of an AI-focused data center, they must coordinate to issue a single, joint public disclosure. Furthermore, each covered entity is held jointly and severally responsible for compliance with the disclosure requirements.
Section 2(a)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legal drafting to ensure accountability in complex projects involving multiple parties, rather than being evasive.
Case for: Proponents would argue that joint and several responsibility is crucial for ensuring accountability when multiple companies collaborate on a data center project. It prevents loopholes where individual entities might try to evade responsibility for disclosure failures.
Case against: Critics might argue that joint and several liability could complicate partnerships and increase legal risks for entities that have only a partial role in a project, potentially deterring collaboration or making it harder for smaller entities to participate.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly impacts the legal and operational structure of multi-party AI data center projects, ensuring collective responsibility for transparency.