Matt Garman, the CEO of Amazon Web Services, announced that the company has ceased using nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) in its interactions with government entities while seeking approval for new data center projects.
Garman’s remark is included in a lengthy blog post where he addresses the prevalent skepticism surrounding data centers, advocating that they can bring benefits to local communities.
NDAs have played a significant role in the growing criticism of data centers. Environmental advocate Erin Brockovich highlighted that the chief concern she encounters is the lack of transparency surrounding these projects, which often follow a troubling trend: announcements made only after permits are granted, developers who fail to communicate, and local officials bound by NDAs before the community is even aware of the discussions.
In light of this backlash, New York has recently imposed a one-year suspension on permits for large data centers. Garman noted that over 100 such moratoriums are currently being evaluated throughout the United States.
“If these actions are taken, the U.S. might be jeopardizing its position in this competitive race, with repercussions that could be felt for generations,” Garman asserted. “We cannot afford to let this happen as a nation.”
He also aimed to debunk four key myths regarding data centers: their excessive water consumption, rising electricity costs, significant pollution emissions, and perceived lack of community benefits.
Referring to an Amazon study on its water usage, Garman stated that “direct water consumption by data centers” constitutes merely 0.5% of total industrial water usage in the U.S., which is significantly less than that of golf courses, almond agriculture, and other sectors.
Nvidia recently announced plans to minimize water usage within its data centers, yet such claims, like Amazon’s, often overlook the larger context of water consumption involved in energy production and chip fabrication. Experts have indicated a need for independent assessments of data centers’ water and energy usage, given the lack of federal or state regulations governing how companies report this information.
Regarding electricity prices, Garman explained that while rates have increased in some states with a high concentration of data centers, they have either decreased or risen more slowly in others. He argued that rising energy costs in certain areas are primarily due to aging infrastructure that has not been adequately modernized to meet increasing demand.
Conversely, an independent analysis recently attributed a 76% annual increase in prices on the country’s largest electrical grid primarily to data centers.
On the pollution front—an issue that the NAACP is currently pursuing in a lawsuit against SpaceX—Garman criticized critics for highlighting only the maximum pollution limits authorized for data centers. For instance, a proposed Amazon facility in Texas holds a permit allowing emissions of 33 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, more than any other power plant in the nation.
“The reality is that data center generators are typically inactive,” Garman remarked. “They are not operational 99.9% of the time, running for about 10 hours annually, largely for maintenance checks.”
Regarding community contributions, Garman stated, “We have stopped using nondisclosure agreements with the government agencies involved in our projects.” Additionally, he mentioned that Amazon has invested over $1 billion into communities in the U.S. where it operates significant data centers over the past three years.
Will this assurance alleviate community distrust? Possibly not, as Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, recently pointed out that the current backlash against AI represents a “fundamental crisis of trust,” where citizens feel that tech firms and governments are perpetually scheming against them. Similarly, writer Jasmine Sun observed that when tech companies present their case, opponents often respond with skepticism, stating, “I don’t believe them.”
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.
