The POWER Act directs the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency, to submit a report to Congress on the electric energy and water use of certain covered data centers. The report must be submitted two years after enactment and annually thereafter, and it must include information on water supplied by public water systems, whether covered data centers generate all of their own electricity, how many are electric consumers, and the costs of connecting covered data centers to the bulk-power system and who paid those costs.
The bill defines covered data centers by reference to qualifying projects under Executive Order 14318 on accelerating federal permitting of data center infrastructure, while excluding projects owned, operated, or maintained by certain federal covered agencies. It also defines key terms such as bulk-power system, electric consumer, public water system, and report period. The measure does not itself regulate data center construction or operations directly; instead, it creates a federal reporting requirement intended to increase transparency around resource use and infrastructure costs associated with large data centers.
If enacted, the bill would add a new federal reporting obligation for the Department of Energy, with EPA consultation, focused on data centers that meet the bill’s definition of covered projects. It would not amend state law directly, but it could affect data center operators, utilities, and public water systems by requiring collection and disclosure of energy, water, and interconnection cost information. The bill could also influence future federal or state policy debates over data center siting, permitting, utility planning, water allocation, and grid impacts.
The available context shows no recorded committee debate or votes, so there is no documented partisan or procedural sentiment beyond the bill’s introduction and referral to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The text itself suggests a policy concern about the environmental and infrastructure impacts of data centers, especially their use of water, electricity, and public subsidies. Overall, the bill appears framed as an oversight and transparency measure rather than a direct regulatory restriction.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the scope of federal oversight, the burden of reporting on data center developers and operators, and the bill’s implicit criticism of public support for projects that may strain water resources or farmland. Supporters would likely emphasize transparency, conservation, and accountability for energy and water use, while opponents may argue that the reporting requirements could slow deployment of data center infrastructure or duplicate existing permitting and utility reporting processes. The exclusion of federally owned or operated projects and the reference to executive-order-defined qualifying projects may also raise questions about which facilities are covered and how broadly the reporting regime would apply.