Data‑center siting and transparency bill debated; committee ultimately refers measure to local government after reconsideration
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Senate Bill 552 would require applicant‑funded site assessments and statewide standards for large data centers, plus public hearings and utility‑infrastructure disclosure. Environmental groups supported transparency; the data‑center industry and trades opposed duplication and competitiveness impacts. After procedural activity and reconsideration, the committee reported and referred the bill to Local Government.
Senate Bill 552, presented by Senator Sturtevant, would require applicant‑funded site assessments for large data centers and impose statewide standards for impacts such as water use, noise, light, and air emissions. The bill, as read to the committee, defines a "large data center" at 1 megawatt of critical IT load and would require two public hearings and DEQ standards for impacts.
"Before a locality approves a rezoning, special exception or special use permit for siting or major expansion of one of these large data centers, it requires the applicant to create an applicant funded site assessment," Senator Sturtevant said, describing requirements for noise, water resources, light pollution and impacts on agriculture and forests.
Representatives of environmental and conservation organizations, including the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the National Parks Conservation Association, praised the bill’s transparency and cumulative‑impact approach. Kyle Hart (National Parks Conservation Association) told the committee the measure addresses cumulative groundwater and emissions concerns.
Industry witnesses, including Nicole Riley of the Data Center Coalition, urged opposition, arguing the bill duplicates provisions already covered in other measures (citing Senate Bill 130) and would impose state‑level redundancy, delay projects, and harm competitiveness. Trade unions also opposed the measure on fairness grounds.
Procedurally the bill initially failed to report (transcript records a failed roll), then, after a motion to reconsider and additional procedural steps, the committee later reported SB 552 and referred it to Local Government for further review.
What happens next: With referral to Local Government, the measure will be reviewed for local‑government impacts and siting authority; committee reconsideration reflects the procedural and policy complexities around statewide standards for data‑center impacts.