Ex-EPA and Ex-FERC Chiefs Say One Agency Must Police Data Centers

Two former regulators who served opposing presidents say Washington should put all oversight of AI and digital infrastructure under one roof — because the federal government today regulates a snack cake more rigorously than the data centers underpinning the economy.

One author led the Environmental Protection Agency under President Biden. The other chaired the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under President Trump. Writing in Fortune, they agree on one thing: the status quo is failing America.

The evidence is stacking up. In May, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation issued a Level 3 alert — its most serious — warning that sudden swings in data center demand threaten grid stability. Last month, Pennsylvania's Public Utility Commission reported that the largest grid in the country will miss its reliability standard starting next year. Communities are pushing back on rising power bills, air pollution, strained water supplies and constant noise, while grid operators warn about reliability and Washington offers no framework, even as the industry asks for one.

Why the authors reach for the 1920s

Their model is aviation. A century ago, pilots flew a few hundred feet up, followed rail lines and landed by bonfire at night. The U.S. invented the airplane but had no national aviation policy, and Europe was pulling ahead.

In 1925, President Calvin Coolidge convened a board on aviation and national defense. Its findings were blunt: aviation was essential to defense, civil aviation served a national purpose, and the public wouldn't trust it until the federal government set standards for aircraft and pilots. Congress answered with the Air Commerce Act of 1926, putting the Commerce Department in charge of commercial flight.

By the late 1930s, the country had four major airlines and over a million air passengers a year. Congress consolidated oversight into a single independent agency in 1938, and again in 1958 under the FAA, which added safety, noise and emissions standards for communities beneath the flight paths. "Data centers are at the bonfire stage, but we don't have decades to get it right," the authors write.

How are states responding?

Governors are improvising. Some are imposing moratoriums of up to a year on new hyperscale facilities. Virginia pulled future large data center projects from its fast-track permitting process, pushing developers toward community benefits agreements and standards on water, pollution, noise control and local hiring.

The authors dismiss both blanket rejection and unchecked buildout as short-term political responses. "The 'maybe, but here's what you have to do' is the beginning of a responsible framework," they write.

They frame the stakes in security terms. The country that leads in AI will help write the rules of the global economy for generations, they argue — and a quarter of American adults already use ordinary AI tools daily, according to Pew Research. Computing power must match or beat U.S. adversaries' to stay competitive.

What would community-first development look like?

Communities shouldn't shoulder the costs of water infrastructure, interconnection and transmission upgrades, the authors argue. Done right, data centers can leave the grid stronger than they found it — mixing baseload fuels, battery storage and renewables while delivering co-benefits.

They point to a cautionary precedent: after the fracking boom, pipeline developers cut corners on siting and restoration, and projects communities had welcomed met fierce opposition. In Northern Virginia, much of the noise neighbors complain about comes not from the buildings but from the gas generators running behind them.

Virginia offers their template. The state would require local approval of any data center using more than 25 megawatts of power, regardless of prior approvals, and would ban nondisclosure agreements that keep communities in the dark. Governor Spanberger, a Democrat, is building on the groundwork laid by her Republican predecessor, Glenn Youngkin. Negotiated benefits could include replaced water and electricity infrastructure, lower costs for affected residents, and trades curricula at local high schools.

A well-sited facility — closed-loop cooling on a remediated industrial parcel, behind an enforceable setback and noise standard — makes an unobtrusive neighbor, they write, and such facilities already operate today.

Who enforces the rules?

Nobody, currently. Data centers are permitted through a patchwork built for a different era: pieces at EPA, FERC, the Army Corps, state utility commissions and county zoning boards, with no one responsible for the whole.

The authors propose a dedicated federal body for AI infrastructure — not AI itself — that holds developers, hyperscalers and utilities accountable and requires projects to answer to host communities. One of them, a smaller-government Republican, is cautious about new bureaucracy; the other, a Democrat, is clear-eyed about the muscle required to compete globally.

Their closing argument: for the security of the country, the strength of the economy and the trust of the public, it's time for a national guardrail with a community touch.