Amazon’s transparency pledge arrives amid growing opposition
Amazon Web Services CEO Matt Garman says the company has stopped using nondisclosure agreements, or NDAs (contracts that restrict people from sharing certain information), with government agencies involved in its data center projects. The change is part of a broader effort to address public suspicion as Amazon seeks approval to build new facilities.
Garman made the announcement in a blog post defending data centers and arguing that they can benefit nearby communities. The pledge addresses one particularly sensitive complaint: residents often say they learn about a proposed project only after key discussions or permitting steps have already taken place.
“We no longer use nondisclosure agreements with the government agencies we work with on our projects,” Garman wrote.
An end to NDAs could make it easier for public officials to discuss projects, but it does not necessarily guarantee that residents will get information early or have a meaningful say. Communities may still want timely public notices, access to environmental and energy-use data, and clear answers about how a project could affect local services.
Why data center projects have become controversial
Data centers are large facilities filled with computer servers that store information and run online services. They support familiar activities such as streaming video, online shopping and cloud computing, as well as newer artificial intelligence tools that require substantial computing power.
Their growing importance has brought a corresponding increase in electricity demand, land use and concern about water consumption. For people living nearby, the debate is not only about technology; it is also about whether the costs and benefits are shared fairly.
Environmental activist Erin Brockovich has said that transparency is the most common complaint she hears about data centers. She described a pattern in which projects are announced after permits have been secured, developers fail to return calls, and local officials have signed NDAs before neighbors know a project is being considered.
- Residents may worry that decisions are being made before they can comment.
- Local governments may face pressure to approve projects that promise investment and jobs.
- Neighbors may question whether the expected economic benefits justify new demands on power, water and infrastructure.
The backlash has already prompted policy responses. New York announced a one-year pause on permits for large data centers, while Garman said more than 100 proposed data center moratoriums (temporary pauses on approvals) were being considered across the United States.
Garman warned that broad restrictions could weaken the United States’ position in the race to build computing infrastructure, with consequences lasting for generations.
A dispute over growth and local control
Supporters argue that restricting data center construction could push investment and computing capacity elsewhere. Critics counter that rapid expansion without adequate planning may leave communities with higher costs or environmental burdens they did not agree to bear.
The tension resembles debates over other major infrastructure projects: a new factory, highway or power plant may serve a wider economy, while its most immediate effects are felt by people living nearby. The central question is often who gets to make the decision, and whether the public receives enough information before it is made.
Water use: what Amazon’s figure includes—and what it leaves out
Garman cited an Amazon report stating that the company’s direct data center water consumption represents about 0.5% of all industrial water use in the United States. He compared that figure with water-intensive activities such as golf courses and almond farming, arguing that data centers account for a relatively small share.
That comparison concerns water used directly at data center facilities. It does not necessarily capture all the water connected to operating them, including water used to generate electricity or manufacture computer chips. A facility might use little water on its own site while relying on electricity and equipment produced through processes that consume water elsewhere.
Nvidia has also said it is eliminating “pretty much all water usage” inside a data center. Such statements can be meaningful when describing on-site operations, but they do not by themselves show the full water footprint of the electricity supply and hardware production.
The distinction is similar to looking only at the water used in a home, while ignoring the water needed to generate its electricity or manufacture its appliances.
Scientists have called for data center water and energy use to be studied independently. One difficulty is that, according to the article, there are no federal or state requirements governing how technology companies report this information, making comparisons across facilities challenging.
Why measurement rules matter
Without consistent reporting, residents and policymakers may struggle to distinguish between a company’s direct use and the broader resources needed to operate its services. Standardized disclosures could make it easier to compare projects, identify local risks and check whether companies meet their commitments.
The debate is therefore not only about whether one company’s figure is large or small. It is also about which activities the figure counts, how it was calculated, and whether the same method is used by other companies.
Electricity bills and the strain on aging grids
Garman argued that electricity prices have risen in some states with many data centers, but fallen or increased more slowly in others. He said that where rates are climbing, the main cause is often an aging power grid that was not upgraded before demand increased.
That explanation points to a practical challenge: electricity networks need to be expanded and modernized as large new users come online. If upgrades lag behind demand, households and businesses may worry that they will face higher bills or less reliable service, even when the causes of price changes are complicated.
An independent watchdog recently attributed a 76% year-over-year price increase on the largest electrical grid in the United States primarily to data centers. The claim underscores how sharply the debate can differ depending on the region, the time period and the way costs are measured.
- Data centers can add substantial, steady demand to a local power system.
- Grid upgrades may be needed to serve that demand reliably.
- The resulting costs can depend on who pays for new infrastructure and how electricity markets allocate expenses.
A key policy question is whether data center developers should fund more of the grid improvements required by their projects. Clear rules on cost-sharing could help prevent households from paying for upgrades that chiefly serve large commercial customers.
Pollution permits: maximum limits are not the same as actual emissions
Garman criticized opponents for focusing on the maximum pollution a facility is legally allowed to emit under its permits. He pointed to a planned Amazon data center in Texas that is permitted to release 33 million tons of carbon dioxide per year, a permitted amount larger than that of any other power plant in the United States.
Garman said backup generators at data centers almost never run, claiming they are idle 99.9% of the time and operate for about 10 hours per year, mainly for required maintenance testing. The company’s argument is that a permitted maximum should not be mistaken for the facility’s typical emissions.
But the permitted ceiling still matters to communities assessing possible risks, especially if the generators run more often than expected or if several projects are built in the same area. Residents may want actual operating records as well as the maximum limits in a permit, so they can compare real-world emissions with what was approved.
A permit sets a legal boundary; it does not, by itself, show how much pollution a facility actually produces in an ordinary year.
Pollution concerns have also become part of broader disputes over technology companies and power generation. The NAACP is suing Elon Musk’s SpaceX and xAI over pollution-related issues, illustrating how environmental questions can intersect with the rapid expansion of technology infrastructure.
The promised community benefits—and the trust problem
Garman said Amazon has contributed more than $1 billion over the past three years to communities where the company has a significant data center presence. Such contributions may support local programs and investment, but residents may still ask how the money is distributed and whether it offsets the facility’s effects on local resources.
The end of government NDAs could be one step toward more open dealings. Yet trust often depends on more than a single policy announcement: communities may expect details about project plans, water and power use, pollution, tax arrangements, jobs and the timing of public consultations.
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has described the backlash against artificial intelligence as “fundamentally a crisis of trust.” Writer Jasmine Sun has similarly observed that people presented with technology companies’ arguments may simply respond, “I don’t believe them.”
What a more transparent process could include
- Publishing key project information before major permits are approved.
- Reporting direct and indirect water and energy use in a consistent format.
- Sharing generator operating records alongside permitted emissions limits.
- Explaining how grid upgrades and other infrastructure costs will be divided.
- Giving residents clear opportunities to ask questions and comment before decisions are finalized.
What comes next for Amazon and local communities
Amazon’s announcement addresses a visible source of mistrust, but it does not resolve disputes over water, electricity prices, pollution or the distribution of benefits. Those questions are likely to become more urgent as demand for cloud services and AI computing encourages companies to build more facilities.
For local officials, the challenge is to weigh investment and infrastructure needs against potential impacts on residents. For technology companies, the task is not only to explain why data centers are useful, but also to provide information that can be independently checked.
Whether the NDA policy changes public opinion remains uncertain. In a debate shaped by concerns about who knows what, and who bears the costs, transparency may be as important to winning approval as the data centers themselves.
