S-4213-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (text: CR S1616-1617)
Sponsored by Richard Durbin (D-IL)
What it does
This bill would require operators of large data centers (those with a peak demand of 25 megawatts or more) to submit annual reports on their energy and water consumption — including monthly usage, water sources, efficiency metrics, and five-year projections — to the state where they operate, or to the EPA and the Secretaries of Energy and Agriculture if the state lacks a qualifying collection program. It would also require pre-construction and expansion reports for new or enlarged facilities meeting the same size threshold. The EPA and Secretaries would publish annual aggregated, anonymized national reports on data center resource use, regional impacts, and best practices.
Who benefits
State and local governments that would gain detailed data to inform utility planning, zoning, and water resource decisions. Residents in communities near large data centers who would gain visibility into local water and electricity impacts. Water utilities and grid operators who could use the data for capacity planning. Competing industries and agricultural users who share water resources with data centers and would benefit from greater transparency. Renewable energy and water-efficiency technology companies whose products may be highlighted in best-practices recommendations. Researchers and journalists who would gain access to aggregated national data.
Who is hurt
Large data center operators — including major cloud computing companies and colocation providers — who would face new compliance costs, reporting burdens, and potential daily fines of up to $20,000 for non-compliance. Smaller data center operators near the 25-megawatt threshold who may face disproportionate administrative costs relative to their size. States without existing reporting infrastructure that would need to build or opt into federal programs. Consumers of cloud and internet services who may indirectly bear costs if operators pass compliance expenses through pricing. Data center workers in facilities that may face operational scrutiny or regulatory pressure leading to operational changes.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that data centers now consume roughly 2–3% of U.S. electricity and are projected to double or triple their share by 2030 due to AI and cloud computing growth, yet currently face no federal transparency requirements. They contend that without standardized reporting, states, utilities, and communities cannot make informed decisions about water allocation, grid reliability, or infrastructure investment — and that this bill fills that gap with a disclosure-only framework that imposes no operational mandates. They further argue that the tiered state-first structure respects federalism by allowing states to run their own programs before federal agencies step in.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's reporting requirements — including five-year forward-looking projections and efficiency proposals — go beyond simple disclosure and could expose proprietary business strategies and competitive intelligence, even with anonymization provisions. They contend that the $20,000-per-day federal fine for negligent non-compliance is disproportionately severe for what is framed as a transparency measure, and that the fee-funded enforcement structure gives agencies a financial incentive to expand requirements over time. They further argue that the 25-megawatt threshold and multi-agency rulemaking authority (EPA plus two Cabinet secretaries) creates regulatory uncertainty that may deter data center siting in the United States.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to mandate reporting from commercial data center operators rests on the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), as data centers are engaged in interstate commerce. Post-Loper Bright (2024), the joint rulemaking authority granted to EPA and two Cabinet secretaries will face independent judicial scrutiny rather than deference, meaning courts will assess whether the statutory language clearly authorizes any regulations the agencies promulgate beyond the bill's explicit terms.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (EPA and Secretaries of Energy and Agriculture) gains new joint rulemaking and enforcement authority; checks include congressional oversight, the fee-funding structure requiring periodic justification, state primacy provisions that limit federal reach where states act first, and post-Loper Bright judicial review of any agency rules.
Historical precedent
The EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (established 2009) created a similar mandatory disclosure framework for large industrial emitters, requiring annual reporting of emissions data without directly mandating operational changes.