Data Center Water and Energy Transparency Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL]
- Committees
- Energy and Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 25, 2026
Bottom line
The bill establishes a comprehensive reporting framework for large data centers' energy and water consumption to enhance transparency and inform policy on environmental impacts and resource efficiency.
What it actually does
This bill mandates that data center operators with facilities having a peak demand of 25 megawatts or more report their annual energy and water usage to either the relevant State authority or, if the State lacks a program, directly to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretaries of Energy and Agriculture. It also requires similar reporting for new or expanded data centers meeting the same threshold. The collected data will be aggregated and used to produce annual public reports on regional impacts, environmental effects, and best practices for efficiency.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that increased transparency regarding data center energy and water consumption is crucial for understanding and mitigating their growing environmental footprint. They contend that this data will enable better resource management, encourage efficiency improvements, and provide communities with vital information about local impacts on utility rates and environmental resources.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that these reporting requirements impose an undue regulatory burden on data center operators, potentially stifling innovation and increasing operational costs. They may also raise concerns about the proprietary nature of some data, even with anonymization, and question the necessity of federal oversight when states could manage such programs.
The bill is concise and relatively easy to read, allowing for a quick understanding of its core provisions.
Section 3(a)(1) and (2)
Annual Energy and Water Use Reporting for Existing Data Centers
Data center operators with facilities having a peak demand of 25 megawatts or more must submit annual reports on their energy and water consumption. This includes monthly usage, power generation methods, water sources, and annual average Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) and Water Usage Effectiveness (WUE). They must also project future usage for the next five years and outline efficiency proposals.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision provides essential baseline data to understand the environmental footprint of large data centers, enabling informed policy decisions and encouraging operators to adopt more sustainable practices.
Critics contend
Critics may argue that the detailed reporting requirements are overly burdensome and costly for operators, potentially diverting resources from actual efficiency improvements towards compliance.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for comprehensive data to inform environmental policy against the administrative and financial burden placed on private industry.
Section 3(b)(1) and (2)
Prospective Energy and Water Use Reporting for New and Expanded Data Centers
Any person planning to construct a new data center or expand an existing one, if the projected energy use or increase is 25 megawatts or more, must submit a report. This report details the projected energy and water use for the first five years of operation or expansion, along with proposals for reducing consumption and anticipated efficiency gains.
Section 3(c)
Annual Public Report on Data Center Impacts
States that collect data will submit aggregated, anonymized reports to federal agencies. The Administrator of the EPA and the Secretaries of Energy and Agriculture will then jointly publish an annual public report. This report will detail aggregated national and regional energy and water use, assess impacts on utility rates and communities, describe environmental effects, and recommend best practices for limiting these impacts.
Section 3(e) and Section 4
Enforcement and Funding Mechanisms
States that establish their own reporting programs can issue fines and conduct enforcement actions. If data centers report directly to federal agencies (because a state program doesn't exist), the EPA Administrator and Secretaries of Energy and Agriculture can jointly fine negligent violators $20,000 per day, with inflation adjustments. Federal agencies are also authorized to assess fees on these directly-reporting data centers to cover the costs of implementing the Act, using these funds without further appropriation.
Expands the definition of 'State' to include not only the several U.S. States and territories but also the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Republic of Palau, and Federally Recognized Indian Tribes. This means data centers within these jurisdictions would also be subject to the reporting requirements.
Section 2(6)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining the scope of applicability, not necessarily evasive.
Case for: Supporters would argue that including these entities ensures a comprehensive national (and quasi-national) approach to data center oversight, recognizing their sovereignty and the potential environmental impacts within their territories.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against such definitional inclusions, as they clarify the scope rather than introduce new controversial policy.
Estimated impact: Broadens the geographic and jurisdictional scope of the bill's reporting requirements, potentially impacting a small number of additional data centers and governments.
Sets a minimum threshold of 'peak demand of not less than 25 megawatts' for existing data centers and 'projected energy use of not less than 25 megawatts' for new or expanded centers to be subject to the reporting requirements.
Section 3(a)(1)(A) and 3(b)(1)(A)
Why it matters:This is a common way to define applicability in legislative text, not necessarily evasive.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this threshold targets the largest data centers, which are the primary contributors to significant energy and water consumption, thus focusing regulatory efforts where they will have the most impact without overburdening smaller facilities.
Case against: Critics might argue that a 25 MW threshold could exclude a substantial number of medium-sized data centers that, in aggregate, still contribute significantly to resource consumption, creating a loophole.
Estimated impact: Limits the scope of the bill to only the largest data centers, reducing the total number of entities required to report but ensuring focus on the most resource-intensive operations.