POWER Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Roy, Chip [R-TX-21]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 22, 2026
Bottom line
This bill mandates annual federal reports on the water and energy consumption of specific private data centers to increase public and congressional oversight of their environmental impact.
What it actually does
This bill, known as the "POWER Act," directs the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to submit annual reports to Congress. These reports will detail the electric energy and water usage of "covered data centers," including information on water sources, electricity generation methods, and connection costs to the bulk-power system. The aim is to provide transparency on the environmental footprint of these facilities.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the rapid expansion of data centers places significant strain on local water and energy resources, and this bill provides essential transparency. They contend that increased reporting will enable better-informed policy decisions, prevent undue burdens on communities, and ensure that federal subsidies do not inadvertently support unsustainable data center development at the expense of vital resources like farm and ranchland.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that these reporting requirements could impose unnecessary administrative burdens on both government agencies and the data center industry, potentially hindering innovation and economic growth. They may also express concerns that the collected data could be proprietary or that the scope of reporting is too narrow to provide a truly comprehensive picture, thus not justifying the costs.
The bill is exceptionally short and clear, making it highly accessible for any reader to quickly grasp its core purpose and provisions.
Section 3
Mandate for Annual Reports on Data Center Resource Use
This section directs the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the EPA Administrator, to submit annual reports to Congress. These reports must include detailed information on the water used by each covered data center from public water systems, specifying amounts for recycled water and average daily usage. Additionally, the reports must identify how many covered data centers generate their own electricity versus those that are electric consumers, and detail the costs associated with connecting any covered data center to the bulk-power system, including who paid these costs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this provision is crucial for understanding and addressing the environmental footprint of rapidly expanding data center infrastructure. By collecting specific, verifiable data on water and energy use, Congress and the public can make informed decisions about resource allocation, infrastructure planning, and potential regulatory needs, particularly in regions facing resource scarcity.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that mandating such detailed reporting could be overly burdensome for both the government agencies tasked with collection and the data centers required to provide information. They may also argue that the data collected could be sensitive or proprietary, and its public disclosure might disadvantage businesses or create unnecessary regulatory hurdles.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the public's right to know about significant resource consumption by large industrial facilities against potential administrative burdens on government and private entities, and concerns about data privacy or competitiveness for data center operators.
Defines "covered data center" as any "qualifying project" under Executive Order 14318 (90 Fed. Reg. 35385; relating to accelerating Federal permitting of data center infrastructure), but explicitly excludes projects owned, operated, or maintained by a "covered agency" as defined in section 834(a)(2) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. 'Buck' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (44 U.S.C. 3601 note(a)(2)).
Section 4(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for brevity and to leverage existing legal frameworks and definitions, ensuring consistency across federal policy and avoiding redundant text within the bill.
Case for: Supporters would argue that referencing existing legal definitions ensures consistency across federal policy and avoids creating redundant or conflicting definitions, streamlining the legislative text. The focus on private projects benefiting from federal permitting is a targeted approach.
Case against: Critics might argue that relying on external documents makes the bill less transparent and harder for the average citizen to understand its full scope without extensive legal research. The explicit exclusion of federal data centers could also be seen as a loophole, limiting the comprehensiveness of the reports.
Estimated impact: This definition significantly narrows the scope of data centers subject to reporting, focusing specifically on privately-owned or operated facilities that benefit from accelerated federal permitting processes, while exempting federal government data centers from these specific oversight requirements.