Energy

Require that data centers procure or subscribe to locally deliverable, additional, and zero-emissions renewable energy at all hours of the day, every day of the year, as a condition for receiving approval.¹ “Additional” is an important requirement to ensure that data centers do not take energy away from another project that would have used the available renewable energy to decarbonize.

1. Thanks to Sierra Club for this language. For more details, see Sierra Club, “State Policies to Migitate Data Centers,” January 2025, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ECA47CaiLwaL0STaon7Ng4O2i-Etd6E2mPfhqp-30TI/. ↩︎

Because local electrical grids have struggled to produce enough power for data center demand, data centers have searched for “behind-the-meter” solutions for power, including gas generation and nuclear power. This enables data centers to plug directly into independently provided power, sidestepping investments in energy infrastructure. 

If feasible within your jurisdiction, localities should ban these power work-arounds, ensuring that data centers are only approved if and where local electric grids can support the data center demand without threatening grid reliability. 

Data centers able to bring their own renewable power, such as solar, may receive an exemption to limitations on “behind-the-meter” power. However, localities should scrutinize commitments from developers to bring their own renewable power, as these commitments often fail to sufficiently materialize in time (or at all). Critically, if the data center is not entirely self-supported by its power generation and is interconnected with the electrical grid, the data center must appropriately pay for the services it receives.

Some data centers install backup generators, often diesel, to provide power in the event of power outages. Localities should prohibit data centers from running on-site diesel generators. For more details, see the section on Air Pollution and Community Health Measures.

Require that development projects make all electricity use public in monthly reporting, including whether or not a data center exceeds the energy capacity detailed in the will serve letter. This information must be submitted to the local agency overseeing the permitting process to ensure compliance with the terms of the conditional permit. Information should also be reported to a state agency that gathers and discloses this information online. For more information about how states can track and publish these metrics online, see Establish a Statewide Clearinghouse.

Note: Cities may need to coordinate with utilities or state-run public utility commissions in order to retain this right.

Build in enforcement mechanisms for local governments to hold data centers liable for exceeding energy thresholds noted in the will serve letter. Remember that nominal fines for violations mean nothing to hyperscale data centers.

Institute Safeguards to Mitigate Inconsistent Monthly Energy Usage

Tariffs and special contracts can mitigate the harms that can occur when data center usage spikes. These inconsistencies make it harder for utilities to cover the fixed costs that serve the load. These protections include:

Demand Charges

These charges are based on the peak demand that may occur during the billing period. They ensure that utilities can recover the cost of providing reliable service during swings.

Demand Shedding

This is a safeguard imposed through a tariff or demand-response program (depending on size and utility type). This requires data centers to reduce their load during certain periods, such as during an emergency or peak time. Provisions to ensure that data centers can and do reduce load include making this participation mandatory and instituting penalties for failure to respond to an interruption event.

Retain the Right to Curb or Shut Down Energy During Peak Demand or Emergencies

Utility companies must retain the power to interrupt service to prevent disruptions for ordinary ratepayers during times of peak demand or in the event of an emergency (e.g., heatwave).

Institute Electricity Caps to Ensure Data Centers Are Not Consuming a Disproportionate Amount of Energy

Limit the amount of electricity a service provider can provide to data centers in the course of a calendar year.

Require Data Centers to Abide by Energy Efficiency Standards and Best Practices

States can require that data center projects abide by energy-efficiency standards.

Mandate 24/7 Renewable Energy Requirements

Require that data centers procure or subscribe to locally deliverable, additional, and zero-emissions renewable energy at all hours of the day, every day of the year, as a condition for receiving approval.¹ “Additional” is an important requirement to ensure that data centers do not take energy away from another project that would have used the available renewable energy to decarbonize.

Require “Clean-Energy Tariffs” for Utilities

“Clean-energy tariffs”² are programs where large-load customers commit to purchasing carbon-free energy resources to meet their demand load. In these programs, data centers provide the up-front financial capital for utility companies to develop or procure renewable energy resources, then commit to purchasing the energy supply. States should require that large-load customers participate in this program for all energy needs (24/7). These can be multiyear or lifetime commitments.

1. Sierra Club, “State Policies to Mitigate Data Centers,” January 2025, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ECA47CaiLwaL0STaon7Ng4O2i-Etd6E2mPfhqp-30TI/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.4gub98glhten. ↩︎
2. “Clean-energy tariffs” are programs where large-load customers commit to purchasing carbon-free energy resources to meet their demand load. In these programs, data centers provide the up-front financial capital for utility companies to develop or procure renewable energy resources, then commit to purchasing the energy supply. States should require that large-load customers participate in this program for all energy needs (24/7). These can be multiyear or lifetime commitments. ↩︎

Oppose Development of Fossil-Fuel-Based Generation and Transmission Infrastructure to Power Data Centers

Utilities need to receive certificates of public convenience and necessity (CPCNs) from state PUCs in order to build new generation and transmission. Advocates can intervene in these cases to argue for

• not building new fossil-fuel power plants or transmission lines to power data centers, and/or 
• requiring that the costs of such infrastructure should be fully borne by the data center customers.

Regulate Purchase Agreements Between Utility Company and Power Users

Power-purchase agreements are agreements between a utility company and a data center operator or independent power producer stipulating that the utility agrees to provide electricity to the data center. States can dictate the terms of these purchase agreements, including incentivizing the purchase of renewable energy and prohibiting incentives or discounts for energy generated through fossil fuels.

Prevent New Electricity Demand from Delaying or Compromising State Environmental Standards

States should require public-utility commissions to demonstrate that new electricity demand will not delay or compromise state environmental standards as a condition for approval.

Reject Colocation Policies That Enable AI Data Centers to Soak Up Available Energy

In December 2025, FERC announced that PJM Interconnections’s tariff governing the colocation of generation with large loads like AI data centers was unjust due to unclear and inconsistent rates and terms.¹ FERC directed PJM to create transparent, enforceable tariff rules for such arrangements and new transmission service options in order to protect consumers “by keeping electricity costs manageable.”² Moving forward, FERC action can clarify that colocation policies not disproportionately ease barriers for such AI data center projects.

Enshrine the 2024 FERC Order

Enshrine the November 2024 FERC order,³ which determined that shifting existing generation away from the bulk power market to serve a data center is unjust and unreasonable.⁴

Mandate Load Flexibility Programs and Interconnection Requirements

Direct FERC to mandate load flexibility programs and forced curtailment procedures for data centers⁵ and update large-load interconnection requirements to prevent cascading outages.⁶

Compel the Collection and Publication of Energy-Use Data

Direct FERC and/or the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) to compel the collection and publication of energy-use data by data centers, and compel FERC to require disclosure of when power sellers are affiliated with data centers.⁷ 

Note: Although disclosure of water consumption is also important for data center transparency, FERC does not have jurisdiction over water usage. This recommendation should also be accompanied with provisions that assign appropriate authority over water transparency metrics. For more details, see “Require Comprehensive Transparency Mechanisms and Monthly Reporting.”

Revise Cost-Allocation Methodologies

Direct FERC to mandate that regional transmission organizations (RTOs) such as PJM revise their transmission cost-allocation methodologies so that other customers are not subsidizing the construction of transmission lines that are needed solely to serve data centers.

Reject Nondisclosure Agreements in Utility and RTO Proceedings

The federal government should prohibit the use of nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) in utility and RTO proceedings. If that is not possible, condition eligibility for any preferential rate tariffs or access to interconnection queues on not employing nondisclosure agreements related to development deals. 

Correct Misalignment Between Utility Incentive Structures and Public Interest

Direct FERC to undertake a systematic review of transmission incentive adders and to take other steps necessary to correct misalignment of utility incentive structures with the public interest to ensure that utilities are not overbuilding the transmission system in response to underscrutinized load growth projections.

Protect Against Overbuild

Direct FERC to maintain and regularly update a national database of proposed data centers, working closely with utility commissions and regional transmission operators to accurately forecast load increases, predict accurate infrastructure needs, and protect against overbuilds.⁸ 

1. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “Fact Sheet: FERC Directs Nation’s Largest Grid Operator to Create New Rules to Embrace Innovation and Protect Consumers,” December 18, 2025, https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/fact-sheet-ferc-directs-nations-largest-grid-operator-create-new-rules-embrace. ↩︎
2. Ibid. ↩︎
3. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Order Rejecting Amendments to Interconnection Service Agreement, 189 FERC ¶ 61,078, November 1, 2024, https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2024-11/20241101-3061_ER24-2172-000.pdf. ↩︎
4. Thanks to Public Citizen for this recommendation. See Deanna Noel and Meghan Pazik, “Reining in Big Tech: Policy Solutions to Address the Data Center Buildout,” Public Citizen, December 3, 2025, https://www.citizen.org/article/reining-in-big-tech-policy-solutions-to-address-the-data-center-buildout. ↩︎
5. Ibid. ↩︎
6. Matthew McHale and Hannah Wiseman, Nine Ways to Address the Energy Impacts of AI Data Centers, Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator, January 2026, https://cdn.vanderbilt.edu/vu-URL/wp-content/uploads/sites/412/2026/01/12211201/Nine-Ways-to-Address-the-Energy-Impacts-of-AI-Data-Centers.pdf. ↩︎
7. Thanks to Public Citizen for this recommendation. ↩︎
8. McHale and Wiseman, Nine Ways to Address the Energy Impacts of AI Data Centers. ↩︎

Block expansion of new fossil fuel infrastructure and stop all new fossil fuel permits for data centers. Pass legislation specifying that data center development cannot be used to delay closure of coal plants.

In his first month in office, President Trump issued an executive order declaring a national energy emergency and ordering agencies to facilitate the identification, leasing, siting, production, transportation, and generation of domestic oil and gas resources to “power the next generation of technology.”¹ Notably, renewable energy projects were excluded, exposing the executive order as a handout to fossil fuel companies. Federal policymakers can use their authority to repeal or limit the effects of this so-called energy emergency.

1. Executive Order 14156 of January 20, 2025, Declaring a National Energy Emergency, 90 Fed. Reg. 8433 (2025), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/29/2025-02003/declaring-a-national-energy-emergency. ↩︎

Data center development must consider the impacts on domestic mining for critical minerals and rare earth elements. Congress can add conditions to relevant federal investment or research and development mandates¹ that minimize environmental harm, regional long-term economic impact, and require that local communities are included in the planning and approval of new mines.² Existing mines should be subject to heightened environmental remediation review. Given an appropriate period of notice, the federal government can terminate existing stakes in mining companies that do not conform to the updated standards.

1. U.S. Department of Energy, “Energy Department Announces $355 Million to Expand Domestic Production of Critical Minerals and Materials,” National Energy Technology Laboratory, November 17, 2025, https://netl.doe.gov/node/15113; USA Rare Earth, “USA Rare Earth Announces Letter of Intent with the U.S. Government for Access to $1.6 Billion in Funding to Accelerate the Domestic Heavy Rare Earth Value Chain. Concurrently, USA Rare Earth Raises $1.5 Billion in Private Sector Investment,” USA Rare Earth, January 26, 2026, https://investors.usare.com/node/8221/pdf. ↩︎
2. Danielle Riedl, Devashree Saha and Luke Balleny, “A New Era of US Mineral Mining Must Put Communities First,” World Resources Institute, January 5, 2026, https://www.wri.org/insights/us-critical-mineral-mining-community-impacts. ↩︎

The federal government can set and commit to “ambitious and legally binding emissions reduction targets”¹ to empower a fast and just transition to renewable energy deployment and phase out fossil fuels. 

1. Johanna Bozuwa and Dustin Mulvaney, “A Progressive Take on Permitting Reform: Principles and Policies to Unleash a Faster, More Equitable Green Transition,” Roosevelt Institute,August 22, 2023, https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/a-progressive-take-on-permitting-reform. ↩︎
   26 U.S.C. § 45Q (2023). ↩︎

AI data centers have pointed to carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies as techniques to reduce emissions for their energy infrastructure. CCS and direct air capture (DAC) technologies are propped up by the fossil fuel industry to artificially extend their lifespan. These technologies require significant energy use, negatively impact public health, and remain unproven. Congress should also roll back the 45Q federal tax credit to stop subsidizing these false solutions.¹

1. 26 U.S.C. § 45Q (2023). ↩︎

Prohibit the extraction of fossil fuels on federal land (including drilling in the outer Continental Shelf) and coal leases on federal land. 

Investing in agency staff and experts across the federal government who specialize in renewable energy technologies, cumulative-impact analysis, and environmental justice review will strengthen environmental analysis while reducing review timelines. Ensure that renewable development does not facilitate data center expansion by requiring that all new renewable energy generation funded with public dollars be allocated to residential, municipal, and public-interest uses first.

In 2025, President Trump cut over $7 billion in grants designed to support hundreds of clean-energy projects in sixteen states.¹ The federal government can use its power to reinstate funding for renewable projects, with a focus on community-owned solar and wind projects. The government can stipulate that any renewable energy funding provisions in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law or Inflation Reduction Act cannot go into data center projects.

1. Matthew Daly and Michael Phillis, “Trump Administration Cuts Nearly $8B in Clean Energy Projects in States That Backed Harris,” Associated Press, October 2, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/trump-clean-energy-hydrogen-hub-newsom-0223cb4469508bcea4f689c18c9ab65d. ↩︎

The current revival of the nuclear industry almost exclusively serves the demands for AI power, raising “significant concerns about whether the risks associated with nuclear facilities and unsubstantiated, fast-tracked initiatives can be justified.”¹ Ironically, the pretense of an AI arms race with China is being used to “discard the very risk and safety thresholds established by the nuclear-arms-race era amid the threats of the Cold War.”² The government justifies this elevated risk level by arguing that accelerated adoption of AI will give the US a technological edge over its global adversaries and lead to widespread societal benefits—both claims undermined by the questionable efficacy of AI-based systems.³ Given the untested and unproven nature of AI technologies and catastrophic risks of expanding nuclear power without robust safeguards, federal policymakers should reject efforts to rapidly scale the nuclear industry to meet the demands of AI firms.

1. Sofia Guerra and Heidy Khlaaf, “Fission for Algorithms: The Undermining of Nuclear Regulation in Service of AI,” AI Now Institute, November 2025, https://ainowinstitute.org/publications/fission-for-algorithms. ↩︎
2. Ibid at 15. ↩︎
3. Ibid at 15; AI Now Institute, “Consulting the Record:AI Consistently Fails the Public,” June 3, 2025, https://ainowinstitute.org/publications/research/3-consulting-the-record-ai-consistently-fails-the-public. ↩︎

In addition to rolling back long-established safety thresholds, the government is concerningly using AI technologies to expedite regulatory processes, such as nuclear licensing and commissioning for civil and defense nuclear facilities. Nuclear licensing is a well-established process that requires nuclear operators to demonstrate that the risks arising from their lifetime operations will be adequately controlled, and to take responsibility for controlling and addressing these risks.¹ Introducing generative AI to “streamline” nuclear licensing increases the likelihood that mistakes will arise in the process. Research has consistently demonstrated the lack of accuracy of generative AI and LLMs, including a high rate of inaccurate results,² high hallucination rates,³ and a demonstrated bias in widely used LLMs toward overgeneralizing scientific conclusions.⁴ Even minute errors can compromise nuclear safety thresholds and lead to catastrophic consequences, including widespread radiation exposure.⁵ The federal government must ban the use of generative AI systems in the nuclear-energy permitting process, where safety is at stake.

1. Guerra and Khlaaf, Fission for Algorithms, 22–23. ↩︎
2. Ibid., 27; Jason Wei et al.,“Measuring Short-Form Factuality in Large Language Models,” arXiv, November 7, 2024,
   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.04368. ↩︎
3. Jeremy Hsu, “AI Hallucinations Are Getting Worse – and They’re Here to Stay,” New Scientist, May 9, 2025,
   https://www.newscientist.com/article/2479545-ai-hallucinations-are-getting-worse-and-theyre-here-to-stay; Maxwell Zeff, “OpenAI’s New Reasoning AI Models Hallucinate More,” TechCrunch, April 18, 2025,
   https://techcrunch.com/2025/04/18/openais-new-reasoning-ai-models-hallucinate-more; Gyana Swain, “OpenAI Admits AI Hallucinations Are Mathematically Inevitable, Not Just Engineering Flaws,” ComputerWorld, September 18, 2025, 
   https://www.computerworld.com/article/4059383/openai-admits-ai-hallucinations-are-mathematically-inevitable-not-just-engineering-flaws.html; Guerra and Khlaaf, Fission for Algorithms, 27. ↩︎
4. Uwe Peters and Benjamin Chin-Yee, “Generalization Bias in Large Language Model Summarization of Scientific Research,” Royal Society Open
   Science 12 (March 2025): 241776, https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/epdf/10.1098/rsos.241776; Guerra and Khlaaf, Fission for Algorithms, 27. ↩︎
5. Ibid., 23. ↩︎

Established in 1974, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) operated as an independent regulator, and thus was shielded from political or industry influence. Through a series of executive orders in 2025, the White House has slowly pulled back the NRC’s independence, first enabling the Office of Management and Budget to oversee the regulatory process¹ and later requiring the NRC to establish shortened timelines on nuclear licensing.² The EOs also asked the NRC to consult about radiation exposure limits with the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy, two agencies that are incentivized to expedite AI adoption and lack relevant experience with radiation exposure limits.³ Federal policymakers can reinstate the NRC’s independence to ensure nuclear safety is not compromised by political aims.

1. Ibid., 14; White House, “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies,” February 18, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/ensuring-accountability-for-all-agencies. ↩︎
2. Guerra and Khlaaf, Fission for Algorithms, 14; White House, “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.” ↩︎
3. Guerra and Khlaaf, Fission for Algorithms, 14. ↩︎

Risk analysis frameworks for nuclear energy date back to the earliest moments of discovery at the height of the Cold War.¹ Risk and safety thresholds have developed and changed over time, substantially influenced by catastrophic disasters and the resulting shifts in public perception. President Harry S. Truman’s decision to use atomic weapons against Japan and the 1945 Trinity test nuclear fallout, which reached forty-six states over ten days, led to the establishment of radiation dose limits and targets based on the concept of the linear no-threshold model (LNT), which determined that risk increases linearly with dose, and that no level of exposure is risk-free. This model enjoys wide-ranging international consensus and is based on long-term, detailed studies. Safety analysis also developed the “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA) risk principle to ensure that catastrophic risks are kept within tolerable societal limits. Despite this, the White House’s May 2025 Executive Order recommended dismantling LNT, a key safety pillar, and its consequential standard ALARA, rejecting long-standing international consensus and increasing the public’s risk of exposure to ionizing radiation.

1. Guerra and Khlaaf, Fission for Algorithms, 7–8. ↩︎