AN ACT relating to data centers.
SB 330 would create a new section of Kentucky law governing public agency dealings with data centers. It defines “data center” broadly to include facilities and supporting infrastructure used to store, manage, transport, and process digital data, and it defines nondisclosure/confidentiality agreements for purposes of the bill. The measure prohibits public agencies from entering into confidentiality agreements that expand secrecy beyond what Kentucky law already allows, and it voids contract terms in data center agreements that would waive, supersede, or broaden the Kentucky Open Records Act or Open Meetings Act.
The bill also requires disclosure of specified information once certain milestones occur, such as execution of a siting or development agreement, permit issuance, approval of a special electric rate, or final agency approval. Required disclosures include the owner or operator, location, public incentives or tax benefits, public infrastructure contributions, projected and actual electricity and water use, needed utility upgrades, environmental mitigation commitments, and clawback provisions. It further provides that aggregated data about impacts on utility rates, grid reliability, pollution discharge, infrastructure capacity, and public expenditures is not confidential solely because it relates to a data center project, while preserving protection for trade secrets and proprietary technical or cybersecurity information.
SB 330 would affect Kentucky’s open government and economic development framework by limiting the use of nondisclosure agreements in data center projects and by making certain project-related information publicly available. It would apply to public agencies, local officials, utility boards, the Public Service Commission, and municipal utilities involved in data center siting, construction, operation, or rate approvals. The bill would not eliminate existing protections for trade secrets, cybersecurity systems, or other confidentiality provisions preserved elsewhere in law, but it would narrow the ability of public entities and private developers to keep data center-related impacts and incentives secret.
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to advance transparency and public oversight of large data center projects, suggesting a pro-disclosure policy approach. The absence of recorded votes or discussion means the overall legislative sentiment cannot be measured from the available context.
The main points of contention likely concern transparency versus confidentiality. Supporters would likely favor public disclosure of incentives, utility impacts, infrastructure needs, and environmental effects so communities and regulators can evaluate data center projects. Opponents or affected developers and utilities may object that the bill limits negotiated confidentiality, could expose commercially sensitive project details, and may complicate recruitment of large-scale data center investments. The bill attempts to address some of those concerns by preserving trade secret protection and excluding proprietary technical and cybersecurity information from mandatory disclosure.