1. United States
2. Ind.
3. Letter

I am writing to express concern regarding the recently announced “Ratepayer Protection Pledge” related to the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence data centers in the United States. While the pledge attempts to address one legitimate issue—the possibility that large-scale data center development could shift electricity infrastructure costs onto residential ratepayers—it leaves several critical policy questions unresolved. These gaps are particularly concerning in light of the administration’s broader push to accelerate AI infrastructure deployment while simultaneously reducing regulatory barriers. When the federal government encourages the rapid expansion of a new industrial sector with substantial energy, environmental, and infrastructure demands, the need for careful oversight and clearly defined safeguards becomes even more important. At present, however, the pledge appears to function primarily as a voluntary commitment rather than an enforceable regulatory framework. The pledge’s narrow focus on electricity costs also leaves other community impacts largely unaddressed. Hyperscale data centers can place significant demands on water resources for cooling, generate emissions from large banks of diesel backup generators, and increase strain on local infrastructure. These environmental and public health considerations are not meaningfully addressed within the pledge framework. In addition, many data center developments receive substantial tax abatements while producing relatively limited long-term local employment compared with other industrial investments of similar scale. This raises legitimate questions about whether host communities are receiving an equitable return for the infrastructure burdens these facilities create. Other sectors of infrastructure development have addressed similar concerns through mechanisms such as community benefit agreements, production-based taxes, or revenue-sharing arrangements tied to operational output. Renewable energy development—including wind and solar facilities—frequently incorporates such models to ensure that communities hosting large infrastructure projects receive ongoing economic participation rather than only temporary tax revenues. At the same time, policymakers and national security leaders increasingly describe advanced artificial intelligence as a technology with significant strategic and safety implications. This creates an important governance question: If the technology is risky enough to raise national security concerns, should deployment be accelerated faster than governance frameworks are built? Rapid technological development can bring extraordinary benefits, but it must be accompanied by thoughtful policy that protects both communities and the long-term stability of critical infrastructure systems. For these reasons, I respectfully urge Congress to examine the current policy framework surrounding large-scale AI infrastructure development and consider the following: • Evaluate whether voluntary industry pledges are sufficient to protect ratepayers and communities hosting hyperscale data centers. • Examine the environmental, water, and public health impacts associated with large-scale AI infrastructure development. • Consider whether community benefit mechanisms—such as revenue-sharing or production-based taxes—should apply to large data center developments, similar to existing frameworks used in renewable energy projects. • Ensure that governance and safety frameworks for advanced AI technologies evolve alongside the rapid expansion of the infrastructure that powers them. The United States has an opportunity to lead in artificial intelligence while also establishing thoughtful governance for the infrastructure that supports it. Addressing the limitations of the current pledge would be an important step toward achieving that balance. Thank you for your attention to this issue.