Who Pays for AI? The Hidden Cost of Rising Data Center Demand

Key Takeaways 

• AI data centers are driving the fastest electricity demand growth in decades: US data centers consume an estimated 4 to 5% of US electricity today, projected to reach as much as 9 to 17% by 2030 (EPRI).
• Without deliberate cost allocation, residential and small-business ratepayers subsidize private AI infrastructure. 
• Peer-reviewed modeling projects data center growth could raise US power costs 6 to 29% nationally by 2030, and up to 57% in the hardest-hit regions.
• Utility commissioners, state regulators, and policymakers now have working models to draw from, including large-load tariffs, dedicated rate classes, and direct assignment of transmission costs.

AI Data Center Energy Demand Is Testing the Limits of the Grid

AI is driving electricity demand at a pace the US grid has not seen in decades. US data centers already consume an estimated 4 to 5% of the nation's electricity, and EPRI projects that share could reach 9 to 17% by 2030. Behind nearly every AI model and digital product is the invisible infrastructure that powers it: data centers. These facilities are resource-intensive, requiring massive amounts of electricity to power servers, substantial water for cooling, and extensive new grid infrastructure.

In the race to decarbonize the grid, data centers are emerging as a critical pressure point. This infrastructure sits at the intersection of digital growth and climate action, forcing a difficult question: who pays to power AI?

Legacy Utility Models Weren’t Built for this Growth

Utilities must upgrade aging grid infrastructure to meet this new surge in electricity demand, while maintaining reliability. Under legacy utility frameworks, it's often ratepayers who foot the bill for those upgrades. And the costs are not distributed equitably.

Traditional utility planning assumes that increased demand justifies expanded investment in generation and transmission infrastructure. When a new type of large customer, like a tech company, moves into a utility’s service territory, utilities plan new infrastructure to meet that projected demand. 

Utilities typically recover the cost of new infrastructure through a process called rate base cost recovery. This allows utilities to charge all customers in the “rate base” for the expenses incurred, including thousands of individuals, families, and small businesses, even when those costs stem from the demands of just a few large users.   

This legacy model struggles to keep pace in the AI boom era, where massive new electricity demand can double within a few years, a scale of growth that used to take decades. Additionally, while data centers create short-term construction jobs, there are almost no lasting employment benefits for local communities.

It's clearly inequitable for all ratepayers to bear the costs of upgrading the grid to benefit just a small number of massive data centers. But that's not the only problem. If utilities decide to meet new power demand from large data centers with new fossil fuel generation, such as gas peaker plants, they risk creating stranded assets: infrastructure that becomes obsolete or uneconomical as climate targets, clean energy mandates, or the cost-effectiveness of renewables accelerates. Once built, ratepayers will have to continue paying for these long-lived investments for years, even if they are underutilized or retired early due to policy shifts. This risk is no longer hypothetical: to serve projected data center load, Georgia regulators approved a plan to extend the lives of two massive coal plants to as late as 2038, and Virginia regulators stripped roughly $350 million tied to speculative early-stage data center projects out of Dominion Energy's revenue forecast.

If utilities are locking in decades of new fossil fuel generation to meet short-term data center growth, ratepayers may be left holding the bag for infrastructure that contradicts their climate goals and state mandates, with little ratepayer or community input into the decision. Effectively, local communities may be subsidizing a technology that they did not directly ask for in the first place and has little to no direct community benefits. The result is a long-term misalignment between utility investment strategy and the public interest.

Ratepayers Bear the Cost of Private AI Expansion

The economic burden of data center expansion can fall disproportionately on households and small businesses. But data centers, as the largest and fastest-growing users, often negotiate bespoke contracts, subsidized rates, or fixed-price electricity agreements that shield them from long-term cost volatility.

This can result in other customers, especially residential and low-income ratepayers, bearing a disproportionate share of the infrastructure and maintenance costs. In many states, residential and low-income customers already experience energy cost burdens that exceed affordability thresholds. Adding the weight of infrastructure investments to serve energy-intensive data centers, without sharing those costs equitably, exacerbates an already regressive utility cost allocation system.

Georgia shows how these costs reach ratepayers even when regulators act. Georgia Power customers absorbed six rate increases totaling roughly $43 per month between 2023 and 2025, and while regulators approved a base-rate freeze through 2028, the freeze excluded fuel and storm costs. In 2026 fuel-cost proceedings, testimony showed that large industrial and data center customers raise other customers' monthly fuel costs by 5 to 11%, prompting the Georgia Public Service Commission to open an investigation into how fuel costs are allocated between large loads and residential customers. Ratepayers noticed: in November 2025, both Georgia PSC seats flipped in elections run explicitly on utility bills and data center cost-shifting. In Virginia, regulators approved a rate increase of roughly $16 per month for typical Dominion Energy residential customers amid surging data center demand.

These examples are not anomalies. A peer-reviewed study in Environmental Research Letters projects that data center growth could raise US power costs 6 to 29% nationally by 2030, and up to 57% in the hardest-hit regions, with Virginia among the steepest. This is a systemic shift in energy demand, one that places a growing burden on communities and lacks clear public benefits.

Environmental and Community Impacts Are Mounting

Beyond economic impacts, the geography of data center development reveals another layer of inequity: environmental justice. Data center siting often prioritizes affordable land, low resource costs (e.g., electricity, water), and climate considerations like heat variability. They also rely on proximity to pre-existing fossil fuel generation and transmission infrastructure. Research now confirms the pattern this creates: an analysis of 550 EPA-regulated data centers found that air pollution burdens near data centers rise with the share of people of color living nearby, and a 2026 Washington state study found more than half the state's data centers sit in census tracts with the highest concentrations of people of color.

These communities often absorb the negative externalities beyond their electricity bills, including increased air pollution from peaker plants and on-site diesel or gas backup generators, traffic and construction noise, water stress, and land use changes. Simultaneously, they do not receive direct net positive benefits. Frontline communities are paying attention to this trend, and opposition has become a defining force in where AI infrastructure gets built. Gallup finds 71% of Americans now oppose a data center in their own area, and Data Center Watch counted roughly $130 billion in projects blocked or delayed in the first quarter of 2026 alone. The stakes of community opposition are increasing and intensifying. 

The consequences of ignoring communities are now playing out in federal court. At xAI's Colossus facility in Memphis, developers operated dozens of on-site gas turbines without air permits in a majority-Black area already burdened by industrial pollution. After the Shelby County Health Department granted permits for a subset of turbines in July 2025, the fight moved to xAI's second campus across the state line: in April 2026, the NAACP filed a Clean Air Act lawsuit over roughly 27 unpermitted gas turbines at the Colossus 2 site in Southaven, Mississippi, seeking penalties of more than $100,000 per day. On-site power can help reduce demand on the grid, which can be a benefit. But when that generation runs without permits or oversight, nearby communities bear unmeasured health and environmental impacts from hazardous emissions, and the litigation now underway shows how quickly unpermitted power becomes a legal and reputational liability.

To date, data center developers do not appear to have maximized potential community benefits or engagement. Data centers have not typically employed many local residents beyond construction phases, resulting in limited economic benefits, particularly when facility ownership is distant from the local community or has few local ties. When these same communities already experience high pollution burden or economic precarity, the cumulative impact of a new data center can deepen existing vulnerabilities.

Water use is also a mounting environmental justice concern. Many data centers rely on evaporative cooling systems that draw millions of gallons of water per day, and peer-reviewed research finds significant gaps in how the industry discloses its water footprint. In drought-prone regions, this can stress already-depleted aquifers and heighten tensions over water access.

The result is a high-stakes tradeoff between digital infrastructure and local resource resilience, one that communities should be a part of deciding.

States and Regulators Are Writing the New Rules 

Virginia, the "Data Center Capital of the World," is home to 674 data centers that consume an estimated 25% of the state's electricity, a share EPRI projects could reach 39 to 57% by 2030, the highest of any state. After legislators considered but did not pass data center bills in the 2025 session, the 2026 General Assembly passed roughly 15 data center bills, including legislation, signed in May 2026, directing regulators to ensure data center costs are not subsidized by other customers, along with new requirements for site impact assessments and water-use reporting. Virginia's State Corporation Commission had already created a dedicated rate class for high energy use customers, with 14-year contract terms and minimum charges that apply whether or not the projected load materializes, and in August 2026 it went further, ordering Dominion to develop a tariff that directly assigns transmission costs to the data centers that trigger them.

Virginia is not alone. Ohio regulators approved a landmark tariff requiring large data centers to pay for 85% of the capacity they request, whether or not they use it. Oregon's POWER Act created the nation's first legislated rate class for data centers. Texas gave its grid operator authority to curtail large loads during emergencies. Minnesota, California, Alabama, Tennessee, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Florida have all enacted their own ratepayer-protection measures, and at the federal level, FERC ordered the nation's largest grid operator to write new rules for data centers that co-locate with power plants, citing the need for consumer protection and clear cost allocation. State energy officials are also proactively planning for data center expansion.

The direction is clear. The unresolved question is whether these reforms move faster than the costs already flowing to ratepayers.

What Is the Public Good of Data Centers?

AI infrastructure powers innovation, job creation, research, and the technologies we rely on every day. But it may also bring inequitable social and direct financial costs. Like highways, factories, and pipelines before them, the question remains: What is the public good of AI data centers? How should we hold data center developers accountable to the public interest, which values a clean energy future? We need clear-eyed assessments of how data centers impact energy affordability, climate progress, and environmental equity.

Yesterday's utility policy frameworks were not designed for hyperscale AI data centers. The reforms now underway are a start, but without sustained attention they may still force the public to subsidize private expansion, through economic and environmental costs, often without equitable community engagement, climate accountability, or local benefit.

AI Data Center Growth Needs Accountability, Equity, and Reform

To align data center growth with the public interest, the stakeholders involved now have proven models to build on:

• Utilities and regulators can require large customers to pay an equitable share of new infrastructure costs, as Ohio's minimum-take tariff and Virginia's dedicated rate class now do.
• Public Utility Commissions can mandate equity and community impact assessments during siting and permitting, following Virginia's new site assessment requirements.
• States can condition tax incentives and zoning approvals on local hiring, emissions reductions, and community benefits agreements.
• Data center developers can prioritize clean power and commit to transparent, equitable community engagement and benefits plans before opposition, litigation, and cancellations decide the outcome for them.

As we build the digital backbone of the next century, we must avoid repeating injustices of the past. A just energy transition requires more than megawatts: it demands equity, policy interventions, and real climate progress.

[cta]

Frequently Asked Questions

How do utilities typically recover the cost of infrastructure built to serve large data center customers, and why does this burden fall on other ratepayers?

Utilities recover infrastructure investments through rate base cost recovery: regulators approve new generation, transmission, and distribution spending, and the costs are spread across all customers in the rate base through their monthly bills. That model worked when demand growth was gradual and diffuse, but when a single data center campus drives hundreds of megawatts of new investment, standard cost allocation spreads those costs across households and small businesses unless regulators adopt a special tariff or rate class that assigns them to the customer who caused them.

What are stranded assets in the context of data center power demand, and how do they create long-term risk for utilities and ratepayers?

Stranded assets are long-lived infrastructure investments, like new gas plants built for projected data center load, that become underused or uneconomical before they are paid off, whether because demand never materializes or because policy and market shifts overtake them. Because utilities recover those costs through rates over decades, ratepayers keep paying even if the asset sits idle. The risk is acute today because data center demand forecasts are highly uncertain: Virginia regulators removed roughly $350 million tied to speculative data center projects from one utility's revenue forecast in 2025.

Why do data centers often locate in rural or low-income communities, and what are the environmental justice implications?

Data center siting favors cheap land, fast permitting, low-cost power and water, and proximity to existing generation and transmission, conditions most common in rural, low-income, and historically marginalized communities. Research confirms the consequences: analysis of 550 EPA-regulated data centers found air pollution burdens rise with the share of people of color living nearby. These communities absorb the air pollution, water stress, noise, and land use impacts while receiving few lasting jobs or direct benefits.

What regulatory or policy tools can states and Public Utility Commissions use to ensure data center growth doesn't unfairly shift costs to residential and small-business ratepayers?

The toolkit has expanded rapidly since 2025. Commissions can create dedicated large-load rate classes and tariffs with minimum take-or-pay provisions, long contract terms, collateral requirements, and exit fees, as Ohio and Virginia have done; directly assign infrastructure enhancement costs to the customers that trigger them; and require site impact assessments during permitting. Legislatures can codify ratepayer protections, require water and load-forecast transparency, and condition tax incentives on community benefits, models now in place in at least eight states.

This commentary reflects public policy analysis and opinion, not legal advice or regulatory determinations. 

Key Takeaways

• Geothermal shares the clean firm category with only three other technologies: nuclear, natural gas with carbon capture and storage (CCS), and solar or wind paired with long-duration energy storage (LDES).
• Buyers comparing geothermal to solar or unabated natural gas power contracts are comparing different products: one isn’t firm, the other isn’t clean, and both remain cheaper options because they satisfy less of what buyers currently need. 
• Geothermal’s cost premium is real, but so is the value it delivers. Geothermal can reach 90%+ capacity factor, delivering dispatchable clean power around the clock, and it sidesteps the gas turbine manufacturing backlogs and pipeline infrastructure delays slowing other firm power technologies. 
• Geothermal is closer to commercial readiness than most buyers realize. As demand for firm, low-carbon power intensifies, geothermal warrants a serious look alongside nuclear and gas with CCS.

Geothermal is Gaining Traction Despite Its Cost Premium

Hyperscalers, corporate energy buyers, and data center developers face unprecedented pressure to procure clean power. Wind and solar have played a major role in meeting this need, but they are intermittent, and load growth is accelerating and changing. This market pressure is creating bottlenecks that cannot be solved without new grid infrastructure and/or substantial additions of energy storage. Geothermal, which does not suffer from intermittency, has gained tremendous momentum as a challenger to wind and solar, yet it carries one seemingly glaring disadvantage: its cost. 

Yet, major utilities and hyperscalers alike are lining up for geothermal offtake anyway: Southern California Edison and Google have signed separate contracts with Fervo, and Meta has two 150 MW agreements in place with Sage and XGS. These contracts are signaling a growing shift in power markets: not all megawatt-hours are created equal, and the cheapest contracts may no longer contain what buyers truly need. 

Fast, Clean Firm Power: What Buyers Need Today 

In the clean firm power evolution, clean came first. Buyers signed solar and wind power purchase agreements (PPAs) and matched their annual consumption with renewable energy contracts, or offset them with renewable energy certificates (RECs). With lax carbon accounting, solar and wind remain unbeatable on price. But annual emissions tallies conceal something important—a buyer can procure as much renewable electricity as it consumes over a year while still depending on the rest of the grid during the hours when those resources are unavailable. To close that gap, buyers need a source that delivers clean power around the clock, firmly in every hour, on demand. 

Two unforgiving demands have followed since: speed and location. With today’s rapid buildout of new load, a power source needs to come online in time to deliver power when the customer needs it. It is also important to connect near a customer’s location because existing transmission assets are often fully subscribed. Failure on either axis can disqualify a project. However, a contract that can meet all attributes: clean in every hour, firm on demand, quick to deliver, and able to reach the load, might be the best (or only) option available. It is also likely to be considerably more expensive than those annual solar benchmarks that only met the clean condition. 

Four Technologies Make the Clean Firm Power Shortlist

Given this strict set of constraints, what power options should buyers consider? The right set of technologies should aim to solve as many of the aforementioned conditions as possible, and that leaves a fairly tight shortlist: 

1. Solar or Wind paired with Long-Duration Energy Storage (LDES): To achieve the level of reliability that many buyers, including data centers, require, solar or wind would have to be paired with LDES, beyond 4–8 hours, to be able to cover evening hours and remain online during increasingly common extreme weather events. While there are promising LDES technologies on the horizon, most remain expensive and not yet widely commercial. Costs rise significantly compared to a standard solar or wind PPA, and viability varies by location. This will be increasingly competitive as storage costs fall, but not yet a mature firm-power solution at scale.
2. Natural Gas with CCS: With large amounts of unabated natural gas generation coming online, CCS is an attractive option to mitigate a large portion of these emissions while retaining time to power (by building gas first and adding CCS later) and the dispatchability of gas-fired power. On the flip side, CCS is operationally complex, geographically restricted, and - unlike other options here - failure at any point in the CCS chain directly impacts the carbon intensity of power delivered. Gas-fired generation is also reliant on the gas delivery pipeline infrastructure, which may face capacity constraints. Finally, natural gas with CCS is 50% more costly per MWh than unabated firm gas.
3. Nuclear: Nuclear is seeing renewed interest from a wide range of corporate buyers and investors. Conventional nuclear and small modular reactors (SMRs) are attracting funding and offtake deals. While nuclear power holds high potential, long development timelines, high capital costs, and technology risk remain barriers to commercializing the next wave of nuclear technologies. 
4. Geothermal: Geothermal can provide firm, dispatchable, and low-carbon power with capacity factors typically above 90%. Development timelines can be faster than nuclear in regions where resources are already proven, with some projects approaching commercial readiness now. Geothermal technology is still geographically constrained, but enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) are poised to  expand their geographical flexibility by reducing the number of siting variables. 

How to Evaluate the Right Clean Firm Power Technology for Your Project

How do these various options stack up? We compared them across six dimensions:

1. Firmness: how reliably a resource can deliver power on the hour, on demand
2. Carbon: the lifecycle emissions intensity when considering the operational emissions of the generating facility and the broader system carbon impacts required to meet any reliability gaps
3. Time to power: a measure of how long it takes to get from “we need power” to delivery, including interconnection and schedule risk
4. Cost (current): the likely cost of a PPA if signed today
5. Execution risk: a measure of how likely a project’s claims regarding price, timing, and performance will hold
6. Siting flexibility: a measure of how constrained a resource is to a specific geography

This frame is ultimately something the buyer should score themselves; below you will find our current read. Red (unfavorable) represents a weakness that can end an evaluation on its own, green (favorable) means the dimension won’t constrain the decision, and yellow (moderate) sits somewhere in between. 

Comparing the clean firm power options is, perhaps ironically, challenging along the “clean” and “firm” lines. Every serious contender delivers low-carbon power around the clock, because that is the price of admission. Not one technology earns an unfavorable rating in those categories. And that is the catch: every weakness in the comparison table sits somewhere else. The dimensions that ultimately win (or end) these contracts may be the ones that the “clean firm” label can obscure or oversimplify.

A resource that cannot be energized for a decade, or sited near load, or delivered at a price a buyer cannot defend internally, may be infeasible regardless of what else it offers. None of the four clean firm generation technology groupings clear every hurdle today, but they can satisfy different buyer priorities.  

Solar or wind with LDES offers more buyer flexibility, at a price. Enough generation, storage, and other firming can deliver the reliability required, and the buyer sets that target. But the increments get expensive quickly, especially when reliability gaps remain long or unpredictable. Covering more hours means more storage and more generation to fill it, so each step toward firmness parity costs more than the one before it. Firming shortfalls also carry carbon consequences, depending on what gets called to compensate. Those emissions may be absent from GHG accounting ledgers, but that doesn’t stop them from hitting the atmosphere. 

Gas with CCS is challenged by execution and siting because the product depends on a chain: gas generation, capture, transport, and a permitted storage site capable of permanent CO₂ disposal at scale. Each piece can be developed and tested, but low-carbon electricity requires all of them to work together, which can only be demonstrated once all are built. A buyer cannot substitute a link, and cannot observe the whole chain before committing. Clean, in this sense, is conditional, and the delivered power could end up being far more carbon-intensive than advertised.

Nuclear ranks poorly on time, cost, and execution, but full-scale reactors and small modular reactors carry those weaknesses differently. A large reactor arrives in one piece, and its schedule and final cost come into focus as construction advances. By then, years and billions are committed; a buyer cannot learn from a fraction of a reactor before deciding whether to finish it. Small modular reactors are designed to break that capacity into increments a buyer could add as demand grows, which would ease the one-piece problem. But none are operating commercially in the US yet, and the signed deals target first power in the 2030s, so the modular promise is still years out. 

Geothermal’s weaknesses work somewhat differently. Conventional hydrothermal is tightly constrained by location, which buyers can screen before choosing where to procure, or co-locate where possible. Next-generation geothermal, including EGS, could widen that geography considerably. 

For EGS, the largest remaining uncertainty is execution: whether the developers can replicate successful drilling and reservoir performance at commercial scale. Part of that risk belongs to the rock, and no contract can make a reservoir perform. But drilling also produces information before the entire project has been built, and geothermal capacity can often be developed incrementally as needed. A buyer can require resource evidence before committing, tie later commitments to demonstrated performance, or spread procurement across projects rather than depend on a single field. 

Geothermal’s flexibility has limits. A buyer who needs full capacity by a fixed date may have little room to wait for wells to perform before committing to the next phase. And successful wells do not eliminate risk in project expansion or guarantee performance in other locations. Execution risk stays with the resource. What geothermal offers is more opportunity to learn about that risk while a buyer can still do something about it. 

Revisiting the Geothermal Premium

Geothermal contracts, especially EGS, remain expensive. But that premium looks different on this side of the comparison. Clean has a cost, but so does firmness, speed,  reach, and execution. Every clean firm option pays for those attributes somewhere. Solar and wind contracts will remain cheap by comparison, but it’s the wrong comparison: the market signing geothermal contracts is pricing a much larger product. 

That still leaves a hard decision. Geothermal and gas with CCS carry execution risk and siting constraints. Nuclear asks more of the buyer on cost and time. Firmed solar asks more as reliability requirements rise. The best option will change with each buyer, location, and project. Geothermal’s place in that choice is changing quickly. EGS is expanding where projects can be developed, drilling costs are falling, and commercial experience is growing. Those advances are bringing geothermal into consideration for buyers who previously had little reason to look its way. 

And that may be the more revealing aspect of the geothermal market today: buyers are signing those contracts with the alternatives in full view. Their decisions offer an early indication of what clean firm power delivered in the right place and at the right time is worth, and which risks buyers are willing to carry to get it. 

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Geothermal Cheaper Than a Solar PPA? 

No, a geothermal power contract can be significantly more expensive than a solar PPA. But they're not the same product: solar meets annual clean-energy targets, while geothermal delivers firm, dispatchable power around the clock, which is why buyers are increasingly comparing it to nuclear and gas with CCS instead.

Is Geothermal Cheaper Than Solar with LDES? 

Not necessarily on a per-contract basis, but the cost structures behave differently. Solar with LDES gets more expensive with every additional hour of reliability a buyer needs, since covering more hours means adding both more storage and more generation to fill it. Geothermal's premium, by contrast, is priced into the contract upfront as a firm, dispatchable product from day one.

How Does Geothermal's Risk Compare to Gas with CCS? 

Differently, in a way that matters to buyers. Gas with CCS depends on a chain (generation, capture, transport, and storage) that can only be verified once the whole system is built, so a buyer can't test it piece by piece. Geothermal generates performance data incrementally through drilling, letting buyers require resource evidence or tie commitments to demonstrated results before committing further, though this data does not come free.

Which Deploys Faster, Geothermal or Nuclear? 

Geothermal, in regions with already-proven resources. Fervo's Cape Station, for example, broke ground in 2023 and is on track for first power in late 2026 and 500 MW by 2028: a fraction of a typical new-nuclear large reactor timeline.

Key Takeaways

• Scope 2 emissions (indirect emissions from energy use) are increasingly critical to address. With surging electricity demand, especially from data centers, scope 2 is a growing share of corporate emissions and a priority for decarbonization.
• Approaches to scope 2 accounting are evolving—and formal changes are now on the table. Both location-based and market-based methods remain accepted under the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. Still, the Protocol's recently closed public consultation proposes more granular approaches, including 24/7 power and carbon matching, that would better reflect the realities of modern power markets.
• Proven decarbonization levers, such as reducing energy use, entering power purchase agreements, procuring green tariffs, and buying high-quality renewable energy certificates, are already available and impactful. Decarbonization, not just measurement, must be the goal. Companies don’t need to wait to decarbonize. 

Accounting for Indirect Emissions From Energy Use

As businesses and organizations strive to reduce their environmental impact, carbon accounting has become an essential tool for tracking and managing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Carbon accounting helps organizations measure, report, and mitigate their emissions across various activities. A key framework for categorizing these emissions is the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol), which classifies emissions into three scopes:

Each scope presents unique challenges and opportunities for reduction. Among them, scope 2 emissions are particularly significant because they stem from purchased energy, which is often generated using fossil fuels. However, numerous reduction mechanisms exist today to help organizations eliminate these emissions, such as improving energy efficiency in order to use less energy, and transitioning to renewable energy sources through market-based mechanisms. Understanding scope 2 emissions is crucial for businesses looking to contribute meaningfully to the global energy transition and achieve sustainability goals.

What Are Scope 2 Emissions?

Scope 2 emissions refer to indirect GHG emissions associated with the consumption of purchased energy. Unlike scope 1 emissions, which result from direct fuel combustion, scope 2 emissions arise from the generation of electricity, steam, heat, or cooling that a company procures from external sources.

The primary sources of scope 2 emissions include:

Purchased electricity: When businesses buy electricity from a utility provider, the emissions from power plants that generate this electricity are classified under scope 2.

Purchased heat, steam, and cooling: Some companies purchase heat, steam, or cooling services instead of generating them on-site. These services often come from centralized facilities that may rely on fossil fuels, thereby contributing to scope 2 emissions.

What sets scope 2 emissions apart from other scopes is the presence of market-based mechanisms that offer multiple pathways for organizations to reduce their carbon footprint. Unlike scope 1, where emissions reductions often require technological shifts or operational changes, scope 2 reductions can be achieved through strategic procurement decisions. The transition to renewable energy sources is an essential component of sustainability strategies, setting the stage for a broader energy transition across industries and economies.

How Are Scope 2 Emissions Measured Today?

The GHG Protocol currently outlines two primary approaches for calculating scope 2 emissions: the location-based method and the market-based method.

Location-Based Method

The location-based method calculates emissions for electricity consumption based on the average emissions intensity of the grid where the energy consumption occurs. This approach is mandatory under various reporting frameworks and does not take into account a company’s procurement choices.

• Relies on grid averages: Emissions are calculated based on regional grid emissions factors rather than specific energy purchases.
• Time-delayed data: Since grid emissions factors are typically updated annually, this method may not reflect real-time energy sourcing changes.
• Limited control: Companies using this method have less direct influence over their reported emissions, as they depend on the overall energy mix of their region.

Market-Based Method

The market-based method, on the other hand, reflects an organization’s actual procurement decisions and energy-sourcing strategies. It accounts for specific contracts, such as power purchase agreements (PPAs), renewable energy credits (RECs), and green tariffs, which allow businesses to claim lower emissions from their purchased electricity.

• Reflects company choices: Emissions calculations take into account contractual agreements for renewable energy purchases.
• Mechanism for electricity transition: Encourages organizations to invest in low-carbon electricity options and actively support the transition to renewables.
• Multiple reduction options: Companies can reduce their scope 2 emissions through a portfolio of mechanisms like PPAs, RECs, and green tariffs, making this method a flexible and strategic tool for decarbonization.

While market-based mechanisms provide flexibility in reducing scope 2 emissions, they also highlight the need for more precise and updated carbon accounting methodologies. For example, some decarbonization strategies, such as time-shifting energy consumption to better match renewable generation, are not accounted for under these methods. This and other limitations mean that the traditional methods outlined in the GHG Protocol are increasingly seen as outdated in an era of rapid changes in energy generation and grid dynamics. As a result, the market is shifting toward more advanced power emission accounting methodologies that provide a more accurate reflection of emissions associated with electricity use.

Proposed Changes to the GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance

The current GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance provides a market-based instrument methodology, originally designed in the early 2000s, that allows US-based companies to procure renewable energy at any point within a year from anywhere in North America and apply it to any of its annual electricity consumption within that same year. This methodology, as written, allows for a potentially significant mismatch of “emissions caused” (by consuming electricity) versus “emissions avoided” (by generating renewable electricity) in that it does not account for any of the realities of electric grids and generators, which vary significantly over different regions, seasons, and time of day. 

In response to this, the GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance is currently undergoing a revision process, which will include how emissions associated with electricity consumption are calculated. A focus of the revision process is on how to better account for the real emissions associated with a corporate’s electricity consumption, and more impactful ways of mitigating them through market-based instruments and other approaches. Advanced power emission accounting methodologies, such as 24/7 power matching and carbon matching, are being explored as ways to better represent the GHG emissions associated with electricity consumption. 

• 24/7 power matching emphasizes matching electricity consumption with an equivalent amount of renewable energy production on an hourly basis.
• Carbon matching emphasizes measuring the emissions impact of incremental electricity consumption or production at a specific time.

These emerging methodologies propose a shift toward more granular temporal and region-specific matching, which could require companies to rethink their emissions reporting approach and explore more advanced tracking tools. They may also introduce new strategies beyond market-based instruments for reducing scope 2 emissions, such as time-shifting energy consumption.

As power grids continue to decarbonize and new digital tools emerge, businesses will need to adapt to these evolving methodologies to remain compliant, enhance sustainability strategies, and achieve meaningful reductions in emissions. Companies that proactively integrate advanced power emission tracking into their carbon accounting strategies will be better positioned to lead in the transition to a low-carbon economy.

How to Reduce Scope 2 Emissions

The GHG Protocol provides multiple mechanisms for reducing scope 2 emissions, allowing organizations to shift their energy consumption toward lower-carbon alternatives. These include:

• Reducing energy consumption: Improving energy efficiency in operations can significantly lower electricity use. In some cases, this involves capital investments in more energy-efficient equipment, but in other cases, it can be based on operational changes such as reducing unnecessary lighting, HVAC, and other services during non-working hours. (Electrification efforts, such as shifting from fossil fuel-powered systems to electric alternatives, may actually increase scope 2 emissions, but this can ultimately reduce overall emissions by correspondingly decreasing scope 1 emissions and allowing for renewable energy procurement.) 
• RECs: Companies can purchase unbundled RECs (emissions “attributes” separated from the actual electricity product) to offset emissions associated with purchased electricity. While there has been criticism of RECs due to their significant range in quality, high-quality RECs are available, which may include ensuring regional matching, financial additionality, on-line date additionality, or tighter temporal generation to consumption matching. The use of high-quality unbundled RECs is the most accessible and realistic option for most smaller-scale companies to address scope 2 emissions. 
• On-site generation and co-location: Installing on-site renewable energy generation, such as solar panels, allows companies to directly offset their electricity consumption from the grid. In some commercial settings, such as companies using leased real estate or co-located data centers, partnering with facilities that prioritize renewable energy procurement can help reduce scope 2 emissions for the facility owner while the facility occupant reduces scope 3 emissions. 
• PPAs: Entering into long-term contracts with renewable energy providers ensures companies receive electricity from clean energy sources while supporting the expansion of renewable generation capacity. PPAs are available with standardized contract terms, and some service providers will aggregate demand from multiple smaller companies to reach the minimum required amount for typical PPA contracts. Hedging products are also available to reduce market risks.
• Green tariffs: Many utilities offer green tariffs that enable businesses to purchase renewable energy directly through their electricity provider, often at a premium but with lower emissions impact. For many smaller companies, this is a more viable approach than a PPA with a single renewable generator.

By adopting a combination of these strategies, businesses can significantly lower their scope 2 emissions while aligning with broader sustainability goals and regulatory requirements. The path to decarbonization requires proactive investment in cleaner energy sources, efficient consumption practices, and leveraging market-based instruments to drive the transition toward a low-carbon future.

Why Does Reducing Scope 2 Emissions Matter?

Reducing scope 2 emissions is the underpinning of decarbonizing the power sector and enabling the global energy transition. In 2025, S&P reported that corporate buyers added 15.2 GW of renewable capacity in the US, up from 9.1 GW in 2024, illustrating the growing impact of the corporate sector on the electricity grid. Cleaner grids translate to lower emissions for all energy users. Organizations that actively reduce their scope 2 emissions can contribute to decreasing demand for fossil fuel-based electricity and accelerate the deployment of renewable energy infrastructure.

For companies that own and operate data centers, this transition is especially important. AI data centers consume large amounts of electricity, and their reliance on purchased power makes them a significant source of scope 2 emissions. Since many businesses rely on third-party data center services, reducing emissions from these facilities also helps lower scope 3 emissions across industries. Corporates can influence data centers by requiring that they have a clear and explicit low-emission power strategy in place before procurement.

Beyond direct corporate benefits, reducing scope 2 emissions has a tangible long-term impact on power grids. Increased investment in renewable energy procurement sends a strong market signal, encouraging utilities and developers to expand clean energy projects. As more companies commit to sourcing renewable energy, the overall mix of grid power shifts, making low-carbon electricity more accessible and reducing reliance on fossil fuel-based generation. Ultimately, widespread corporate action in scope 2 emissions reduction supports the broader decarbonization of power markets and strengthens global climate commitments.

Frequently Asked Questions

Will RECs (renewable energy certificates) still count toward scope 2 reductions under the GHG Protocol's proposed changes?

Under the current Scope 2 Guidance, yes—RECs remain a valid market-based instrument. The proposals from the GHG Protocol's recent consultation range from retaining market-based accounting with stricter quality criteria to restructuring how instrument-based claims are reported altogether, and nothing is final until the revised standard is published. What's clear is that scrutiny is rising, particularly for unbundled RECs with weak temporal or geographic connection to a company's actual consumption, so prioritizing high-quality RECs now is the best way to future-proof a procurement strategy.

How would the proposed hourly and regional matching requirements affect companies that rely on unbundled RECs today?

Hourly (24/7) and regional matching would require renewable generation claims to line up much more closely with when and where a company actually consumes electricity. Companies relying on annually matched, unbundled RECs sourced from distant grids would likely see their reported market-based emissions rise under such requirements. The practical preparation is to start collecting more granular (ideally hourly) consumption data and shift toward RECs and contracts with tighter regional and temporal matching.

What's the practical difference between location-based and market-based scope 2 accounting, and will that distinction survive the GHG Protocol's revision?

The location-based method calculates emissions using the average emissions intensity of the local grid, regardless of procurement choices, while the market-based method reflects a company's actual contracts, such as PPAs, RECs, and green tariffs. The consultation explored options from strengthening the criteria for market-based claims to reporting emissions and market instruments in separate, complementary statements. Both concepts will exist in some form, but companies should expect the requirements behind market-based claims to tighten.

When is the new Scope 2 Guidance expected to take effect, and what should companies do now to prepare?

Per the GHG Protocol's July 2026 development plan, a draft of the revised consolidated Corporate Standard is expected for public consultation in 2027, with a final published standard currently estimated for late 2028, and adoption timelines will follow publication. Companies should take action now. Energy efficiency, PPAs, green tariffs, and high-quality RECs reduce real emissions under any accounting regime. Building hourly consumption tracking and auditing the quality of existing REC portfolios now will make any future transition smoother.

Key Takeaways

• Larger power users are securing behind-the-meter (BTM) power to bypass grid constraints, pairing data centers with third-party-owned generation assets that deliver electricity through a private line rather than the grid.
• BTM power arrangements can create confusion about electricity emissions classification: the power users neither own the generating asset nor purchase electricity from the grid, leading some to misclassify those emissions as scope 3 in their corporate GHG inventories. But the GHG Protocol's Corporate Standard is clear: BTM electricity emissions belong in scope 2.
• Misclassifying BTM emissions can create reputational and regulatory risk. Relae can help organizations get this right before the contract closes.

Why Large Power Users Are Turning to Behind-the-Meter Power

Large power users are consuming more electricity due to data center growth and are looking to add capacity faster than the grid can support, which is having a direct impact on corporate emissions. For example, between 2020 and 2024, Microsoft’s location-based scope 2 emissions rose 130%, and Google’s rose 92%, driven almost entirely by soaring electricity demand from AI infrastructure. 

To bypass grid congestion and long interconnection queues, many are turning to behind-the-meter (BTM) power. It’s a pragmatic solution to a real supply problem, but it’s opening an urgent carbon accounting question: when the BTM asset is owned and operated by a third party, where should we account for those emissions?

There has been some confusion that has resulted in companies pursuing an interpretation that would place those emissions in scope 3. The GHG Protocol’s Corporate Standard says otherwise, and the stakes of getting this wrong are high.

What Is Behind-the-Meter Power Generation?

Behind-the-meter refers to electricity generated on the power consumer’s side of the utility meter, bypassing the grid, and typically located on or near the site where the power is consumed. 

In most BTM arrangements for a data center, a third-party developer builds and operates a generation asset, such as natural gas, geothermal, or renewable energy, and delivers electricity directly to the facility through a private transmission line. There is no utility meter, no grid connection, and no standard energy invoice. 

This structure allows companies to access large, reliable blocks of power without waiting years for grid interconnection approvals. Since the company does not own or operate the generation asset and is not purchasing electricity through a conventional utility relationship, this arrangement has created some uncertainty around how to account for the associated emissions. 

Can BTM Electricity Emissions Be Classified As Scope 3?

In this scenario, no. The GHG Protocol's Corporate Standard is unambiguous: BTM electricity emissions belong in scope 2, not scope 3. Yet, some companies have been confused about this classification.

There is broad agreement that since the power users do not own or operate the generating asset, those emissions do not belong in scope 1. Divergence starts when we consider that the company is purchasing BTM power, i.e., not from the grid. Since no electricity is acquired from the grid, some argue that rather than accounting for these emissions in scope 2, they are better placed in scope 3, category 8: emissions from leased assets. 

The appeal is obvious for BTM power consumers. Scope 3 emissions face less scrutiny from investors, auditors, and regulators who focus most of their attention on scopes 1 and 2. Classifying BTM emissions as scope 3 would reduce near-term pressure to act. However, the GHG Protocol is unambiguous in its stance.

What the GHG Protocol Actually Says

The GHG Protocol’s Scope 2 Guidance states that “organizations must quantify emissions from the generation of acquired and consumed electricity, steam, heat, or cooling (collectively referred to as ‘electricity’).” The method of delivery, whether grid or BTM, does not change the classification. 

If a company consumes electricity from a BTM source, the emissions from generating that electricity belong in scope 2. Section 5.4 of the Scope 2 Guidance addresses BTM power generation directly: “the company with operational or financial control of the energy generation facility reports those emissions in scope 1, following the operational control approach, while the consumer of the energy reports the emissions in scope 2.”

This resolves the question completely. The emissions sit in scope 1 if the company has operational or financial control of the asset, or in scope 2 if a third party controls it.

The GHG Protocol’s Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard reinforces this conclusion. “Category 8 includes emissions from the operation of assets that are leased by the reporting company in the reporting year and not already included in the reporting company’s scope 1 or scope 2 inventories.”

Because BTM electricity emissions are captured by the Scope 2 Guidance, the scope 3 category 8 does not apply.

Get the Accounting Right Before the Contract Closes

The GHG Protocol is unambiguous: behind-the-meter electricity emissions belong in scope 2 for companies that consume, but do not control the generating asset. This means that BTM contract terms are crucial to determining how the emissions will be classified, since the GHG Protocol assigns scope based on who holds operational or financial control of the generating asset. 

Companies that move fast on BTM capacity without understanding this distinction risk locking in a scope 1 or scope 2 obligation they didn't anticipate or building a reporting strategy around a scope 3 interpretation the GHG Protocol doesn't support. This can become a reputational or even a regulatory liability that is far harder to address after the contract is signed.

[cta]

Key Takeaways

• Community Benefits Agreements (CBAs) have existed for two decades, and the data center buildout is exposing where the legacy model breaks.
• Across 46 cancelled or stalled US data center projects that Relae analyzed, late-stage benefits packages may be insufficient to change outcomes. Process, transparency, and proof of delivery did.
• The next generation of CBAs, especially for data centers, needs to be meaningful in scope and community voice, measurable in delivery and outcomes, and durable across political and generational divides.

Communities Are Rejecting the Legacy Benefits Model

In a white paper published earlier this year, Relae documented 46 US data center projects that were cancelled, stalled, or withdrawn between January 2024 and May 2026. Together, these projects represent more than US$170 billion in announced investment associated with projects canceled, stalled, or withdrawn following community opposition. Developers led with projects that included reactive communications and limited benefits packages negotiated under the pressure of rapid development timelines and local permitting and approval processes.

[stat]

Across these cases, local communities expressed concerns ranging from environmental and natural resource concerns to electricity rate impacts, to the lack of transparency and accountable development approaches. Even more importantly, communities do not clearly see how AI-driven data center development directly benefits them and advances their priorities and local social and economic goals.

The legacy community benefits models that data center developers are deploying were designed for a different kind of project, in a different political context. The public and local communities are demanding a new model to meet the current moment.

What Is a Community Benefits Agreement? A Brief History of CBAs

Community Benefits Agreements, or CBAs, have been a feature of US infrastructure development for twenty years. The foundational practitioner manual was published by Julian Gross, Greg LeRoy, and Madeline Janis-Aparicio in 2005, and the Partnership for Working Families coalition has carried the practice forward since. 

The frame has expanded. Just Transition principles from labor and climate justice coalitions, the former federal Justice40 Initiative, and contemporary CBA templates from civil rights organizations like the NAACP have pushed the field toward binding equity commitments, durable community ownership stakes, and, where Indigenous or culturally significant sites are implicated, free prior and informed consent. These frameworks moved the field forward. 

Relae examined CBAs across 40 US climate and clean energy projects in our prior white paper, Codifying Community Benefits in US Climate and Clean Energy Projects. Our analysis found that developers now routinely integrate multiple benefit types, including fiscal, workforce, infrastructure, environmental, and procedural commitments. CBAs for climate and clean energy projects have evolved, and this has brought many improvements, even though imperfections remain. The absence of a shared standard for defining and monitoring those benefits can leave outcomes uneven and often inequitable across host communities. Some efforts attempted to create a unified structure. For example, the Department of Energy had a Community Benefits Plan requirement on every Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act application, weighted at twenty percent of technical review. 

Even still, these models were subject to political whims and did not advance localized and community-driven benefits. The gap now is in the timing, verification, and enforcement layer that turns those commitments into outcomes.

Community Data Center Opposition Is Breaking the Old CBA Model

Data center capital is arriving faster than any wave of large-load infrastructure since the shale gas boom. BCG estimates hyperscalers will spend US$1.8 trillion on data center-related capex in the US between 2024 and 2030. According to Dell'Oro Group, the four largest US cloud providers (Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and Meta) spent over US$340 billion in 2025 alone, with Amazon leading at $125 billion. Communities are responding faster, too. According to both Data Center Watch and Relae's own Data Center Cancellations Tracker, the opposition wave documented is mobilizing in weeks, not months.

Data center opposition in the US is bipartisan. It spans red and blue counties, every region, and multiple grid operators, with nearly two-thirds of the blocked investment sitting in counties that voted for Donald Trump in 2024.

By the time a developer reaches a public hearing with strong local community organization, the path of the project is largely set. Late-stage benefits packages that are offered as contractual agreements to side-step community concerns are proving to be ineffective. Communities read them as concessions, not commitments. Good Jobs First has now turned that critique on the data center sector, warning that hyperscale developers risk using the CBA label to whitewash bad deals.

What Makes a Community Benefits Agreement Actually Work?

The next generation of community benefits needs to pass three tests: meaningful, measurable, and durable.

1. Meaningful. Benefits should be calibrated to the host community's burden and vulnerability profile and be developed in collaboration with local community leaders and community-based organizations. Developers should draw on best-in-class methods in environmental justice analyses to help develop strong and responsible community engagement plans to involve residents and impacted communities in data center design decisions. Communities most exposed to siting harm must be at the table on equal footing with adjacent jurisdictions.

2. Measurable. For developers to be accountable to local communities, benefits frameworks need to include metrics for tracking and verifying both investment and outcomes. SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound) milestones, independent monitoring, and secured financial obligations should be the default, not the exception. Historically, DOE's Community Benefits Plan requirements provided an example of incorporating measurable community commitments into federal funding applications. Although these federal requirements have since been rescinded, their emphasis on specific milestones and accountability offers lessons for voluntary community benefits frameworks and have set a usable floor, with at least one specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-bound milestone per budget period. RMI's analysis shows how that floor translates to project-level design. The same logic applies to data centers. If a commitment cannot be measured by the community, it is not a commitment.

3. Durable. Benefits have to survive political winds and local electoral politics. Any benefits that a developer delivers should also be intergenerational in scale, or at least be scaled to the planned lifecycle operations of the data center itself. A CBA built only on conversations negotiated in a closed room will not hold. Durable benefits are written with enforcement mechanisms, conditional triggers, and modification rights that the community can exercise. The strongest form of durability is community ownership, in the shape of revenue share, community trust structures, or potential co-ownership of infrastructure or assets like battery storage or renewable energy generation. Microsoft's Community-First AI Infrastructure framework is a useful industry signal, but voluntary frameworks do not substitute for instruments the community can enforce.

Where Developers and Capital Partners Go From Here

The cancellation surge is a structural feature of the current data center siting environment. The patterns are legible enough to act on now. Three moves matter most.

1. Engage early, and well before site selection. Genuine engagement means naming the end user on the application, opening pre-application discussions to the public, and treating disclosure as a siting strategy rather than a legal afterthought.

2. Calibrate benefits to the host community, not to a template. Pre-siting analysis of demographic, environmental, and infrastructure indicators tells a developer whether drinking-water investment, energy burden protection, noise mitigation, or air-quality remediation will land as a real benefit for that community. Likewise, community involvement and voice in benefits design are equally important to shape calibrated and meaningful benefits. The same investment delivers very different value across communities.

3. Build verification into the instrument from day one. SMART milestones, independent monitoring, secured financial obligations, and modification rights the community can exercise belong in the agreement at signing, not bolted on later. Capital partners should expect to see these structures in their own diligence. A commitment without measurement is a promise, and communities are no longer accepting promises.

The Next Generation of Community Benefits Is Being Written Now

The next generation of community benefits is being designed right now, across municipal halls, civic coalitions, capital diligence checklists, and developer playbooks. The frameworks that will work are the ones that pass three tests: meaningful in scope and community voice, measurable in delivery and outcomes, and durable across political and generational divides.

Relae's Responsible Development team works with developers, capital partners, and host communities to build these frameworks from the ground up. Pre-siting community intelligence, burden-calibrated benefits design, and the verification scaffolding that converts commitments into outcomes.

The shift from reactive to proactive community engagement puts the focus on whether developers are willing to advance the capital to develop meaningful, measurable, and durable community benefits.

[cta]

Frequently Asked Questions

Why do data centers need community benefits agreements?
Communities opposing data center projects cite concerns ranging from environmental and rate impacts to a lack of transparency, and often don’t see how the project benefits them directly. Across 46 cancelled or stalled US data center projects Relae analyzed, representing more than US$170 billion in blocked investment, late-stage benefits offered under pressure didn’t change outcomes. A community benefits agreement lets developers deliver benefits proactively and make them verifiable, rather than reactively once opposition has organized. 

What’s the difference between a legacy community benefits agreement and a next-generation one?
Legacy CBAs were often negotiated with specific legal and formal entities like County Commissions or City Councils and had narrow focuses on workforce or economic development. Oftentimes, these tools were offered as concessions through negotiation, rather than commitments, which is why communities are rejecting them. A next-generation community benefits agreement is meaningful, measurable, and durable from the start, with benefits calibrated to the host community rather than bolted on later.

Who should be involved in negotiating a community benefits agreement for a data center?
Benefits should be developed with local community leaders and community-based organizations, with the most affected communities at the table on equal footing with adjacent jurisdictions. Developers, capital partners, and host communities all have a role in building the SMART milestones and independent monitoring that turn those commitments into outcomes.

Key Takeaways

• Community opposition has blocked, withdrawn, or stalled more than $170 billion in announced AI data center investment across 20 US states since January 2024. The pace is accelerating: 6 cancellations in 2024, 25 in 2025, and more than 20 additional cancellations by May 15, 2026.
• Data center opposition is bipartisan. It spans red and blue counties, every region, and multiple grid operators, with nearly two-thirds of the blocked investment sitting in counties that voted for Donald Trump in 2024. 
• Process and transparency, more than resource concerns alone, drive the fastest and most durable opposition. How a developer runs the engagement process shapes both community sentiment and the project’s ultimate success.

How Many AI Data Center Projects Have Been Cancelled? 

Between January 1, 2024, and May 15, 2026, community opposition blocked, withdrew, or stalled 46 announced AI data center projects across 20 US states, representing more than $170 billion in announced investment. These values are disclosed or derived for 35 of the 46 projects; the remaining 11 carry no public figure.

[stat]

The pace of successful opposition has accelerated sharply. Cancellations rose from 6 in 2024 to 25 in 2025. The first five months of 2026 added more than 20 additional cancellations, the fastest stretch on record. 

Virginia leads the state count with 11 blocked projects, followed by Indiana with 7 and Texas with 5. Together, those three states account for roughly half of all cancellations in the dataset. The PJM grid region carries the largest single share of blocked investment at $70 billion across 13 projects, followed by MISO at $37 billion.

Is Opposition to Data Centers Bipartisan?

Yes. The opposition wave crosses party lines on every measure we examined. Republican-leaning counties hosted 28 of the 46 projects (61%), Democratic-leaning counties hosted 16 (35%), and 2 fell within five points.

Weighted by announced investment, about two-thirds of blocked dollars sat in Republican-voting counties. Strong Republican counties (those Trump won by more than 15 points) account for $99 billion across 23 projects. Strong Democratic counties account for $29 billion across 9 projects. The remaining $44 billion spans Lean Republican, Tossup, and Lean Democratic counties.

Why Are Communities Opposing Data Centers?

Communities raise a consistent set of concerns across the country: water demand, electricity rates, air quality where developers propose gas co-generation, rural character, and a lack of transparency in the development process. 

Across the seven cases that we studied in depth, process, and transparency concerns were the most consistently cited factors associated with opposition. Non-disclosure agreements between developers and local officials, ownership structures in which the ultimate end-user was not publicly identified, and closed-door pre-application negotiations produce opposition faster and more durably than any other concern.

The pattern holds across very different communities: a diffuse civic mobilization in rural Georgia, an NGO water coalition in a Texas college town, a conservation coalition anchored by the Southern Environmental Law Center in Southside, Virginia, and an institutional civic organization with legal-expert and celebrity support in northern Virginia. Each produced the same outcome, and each flagged process and transparency as a dominant or top-three concern in the public record.

By the time a project reaches its first public hearing against organized community opposition, the political path of the project is largely set. Late-stage benefits packages consistently fail to reverse that trajectory. Communities read them as concessions, not commitments.

Assess Community Opposition Risk Before You Site

Community opposition is now a structural feature of the AI data center siting environment. The patterns are clear enough to act on now. Relae's Community Impacts team helps developers and capital partners implement responsible development standards through pre-siting community intelligence, calibration of benefits design to specific community contexts, and building the verification scaffolding that turns commitments into outcomes. 

[cta]

Frequently Asked Questions 

Which states are banning data centers in the US?

The first statewide moratoriums on data centers have arrived. In July 2026, Governor Hochul signed the country's first statewide moratorium, an executive order pausing state environmental permits for up to one year for new data centers of 50 MW or more. Texas followed weeks later, halting approvals of new data center grid connections until state regulators audit their power, water, tax, and ownership details. This is a snapshot from August 2026, and we will likely see additional changes in the months ahead.

The local picture is more developed. Individual municipalities and counties have adopted moratoria and zoning ordinance amendments that block or restrict data centers within their jurisdictions. The City of Peculiar, Missouri, removed data centers from its light-industrial zoning entirely. Monroe County, Georgia, and Jones County, Georgia, both adopted moratoria after project denials in 2025. Cassville Township, Wisconsin, and San Marcos, Texas adopted zoning and code amendments in 2026. State legislatures in Virginia, Indiana, Texas, and Missouri have taken up data center siting, ratepayer, and permitting legislation, though most bills remain in progress rather than enacted.

How much data center investment has been blocked in the US?

More than $170 billion in announced AI data center investment has been blocked, withdrawn, or stalled by community opposition across 46 projects and 20 US states between January 1, 2024 and May 15, 2026. 

Relae arrived at this figure from data on 35 of the 46 projects; 11 have no publicly disclosed investment value. The pace has accelerated sharply: 6 cancellations in 2024, 25 in 2025, and more than 20 additional cancellations in the first five months of 2026 alone. Virginia leads the state count with 11 projects. The PJM grid region carries the largest single share of blocked capacity at $70 billion across 13 projects.

What causes a data center project to be cancelled by community opposition?

As of August 2026, communities cite a consistent set of concerns across cancelled projects: water demand, grid strain and residential rate impacts, air quality where developers propose gas-fired co-generation, rural character and farmland conversion, and lack of transparency in the development process. 

In the seven cases we studied in depth, process and transparency were together the most consistent driver of opposition. Non-disclosure agreements between developers and local officials, shell LLC ownership structures that conceal the end-user, and closed-door pre-application negotiations produce faster and more durable opposition than any single resource concern. Late-stage benefits packages consistently fail once that transparency-driven frame has formed.