As the world’s biggest technology companies race to build sprawling data centers across the country to power an unprecedented artificial intelligence boom, a yearlong Senate investigation argues that some of these firms are deliberately misleading the public about the true financial costs, resource demands, and long-term community benefits surrounding their massive infrastructure projects.

The findings, first shared with TIME, are expected to fuel a broader legislative effort in the coming months by members of Congress who are hoping to put tighter guardrails, increased regulatory oversight, and heavier financial burdens around these massive, power-intensive developments.

“Congress must hold Big Tech accountable so these companies pay their fair share,” says Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat who has spearheaded efforts to call for a national moratorium on new AI data centers until developers formally agree to cover the full spectrum of their operational and infrastructure costs.

Warren’s office led the sprawling investigation alongside fellow Democratic Senators Chris Van Hollen of Maryland and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut. The inquiry focused heavily on seven major data center developers and technology giants: Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, CoreWeave, Digital Realty, and Equinix. Throughout the yearlong process, the senators’ staff requested detailed internal information from each company and conducted interviews with key employees to understand the behind-the-scenes realities of the boom.

The findings, which largely match reporting from various news outlets over the past year, offer an unprecedented, detailed look into the increasingly contentious economics of the nationwide AI buildout. Data center companies routinely point to construction employment numbers when making the case for local tax incentives and zoning approvals. However, when the senators’ staff asked for comprehensive information regarding permanent, long-term employment figures, several of the major companies refused to provide transparent data, according to the report.

Some corporations ultimately told investigators that permanent staffing levels were roughly equivalent to just one worker for every megawatt of power demand. By that conservative measure, a massive 100-megawatt data center could consume roughly as much electricity as 100,000 typical American homes while employing a mere 100 permanent workers once construction is fully completed.

“This report lays bare what we have long known: working Americans and local communities are footing the bill for Big Tech’s massive expansion of data centers, while these companies continue to operate without transparency,” Senator Van Hollen says, criticizing the lack of openness from the corporate sector.

Notably, the Senate investigators uncovered that the most lucrative incentives secured by data center developers are not necessarily the high-profile property-tax breaks that often grab public headlines, but rather broad sales-tax exemptions on high-end computer equipment. Because modern artificial intelligence facilities require vast quantities of specialized hardware to train and run complex models, graphics processing units (GPUs) account for an estimated 39 percent of the total spending at an average 1-gigawatt AI data center, according to the report.

Furthermore, all four of the major technology corporations examined in the investigation—Amazon, Google, Meta, and Microsoft—have routinely sought nondisclosure agreements during data center development negotiations, according to the report. Some of the firms acknowledged requesting these confidentiality clauses directly from local government officials. While data center negotiations frequently deal with commercially sensitive proprietary information, the Senate report argues that these expansive NDAs have also severely restricted public scrutiny of deals involving taxpayer dollars, local utility rates, and public infrastructure upgrades.

In response to mounting public and political pressure, Microsoft informed investigators that it would stop seeking nondisclosure agreements with local governments moving forward, although the company noted it would continue using them with state agencies, public utility commissions, and utility providers. Amazon has since announced a similar policy shift. Meanwhile, Google and Meta declined to commit to ending the practice with local governments entirely, according to the report.

The release of the report coincides with a period where data centers have rapidly transformed into a major hot-button issue on the national campaign trail. Public sentiment has soured in many regions, with about half of Americans now saying that data center construction is ultimately bad for the country, according to a recent Economist/YouGov poll. Both major political parties have attempted to harness public anxiety surrounding the issue, even as figures like President Trump warn that excessive local opposition to data centers could end up pushing the vital AI buildout overseas.

Who Pays for the AI Power Boom?

A significant portion of the Senate report explores the central question of whether tech companies are truly paying their fair share for data centers that are measurably driving up energy costs for nearby homeowners and local businesses. Across the country, state utility regulators and lawmakers are increasingly being forced to decide how much of the massive grid expansion should be paid for by the private corporations driving the sudden surge in demand, and how much of the financial burden should instead be borne by ordinary residential customers and taxpayers.

The Senate investigators found that none of the seven major companies examined would agree to a standard that would require them to pay for the building of new power infrastructure that would not have been needed if not for the immense load of their data centers. The companies generally argued that while they are willing to pay the direct operational costs of serving their specific data centers, larger, multi-million-dollar investments in the broader electric grid—such as brand-new power plants and high-voltage transmission lines—can eventually benefit other customers and therefore should not be automatically or exclusively assigned to the single company that helped drive the initial need for them.

As a prime example, the report points to a power plant in Richland Parish, Louisiana, that the local utility provider, Entergy, has actively sought to acquire. Energy analysts argue that this corporate purchase was driven primarily by Meta’s planned $50 billion data center development in the state, a colossal facility expected to draw a staggering 4,500 megawatts of electricity—roughly four times the peak electricity demand of the entire city of New Orleans. Early economic estimates indicate that the plant purchase could drive up monthly electric bills for the average Entergy customer by $8 to $13 per month. Meta, for its part, has consistently disputed claims that its massive project is uniquely responsible for those consumer costs.

Congress Debates New Data Center Laws

When Congress reconvenes in Washington following the midterm elections, data centers are expected to be among the most pressing and contentious issues waiting for lawmakers. Earlier in September, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the bipartisan Ratepayer Protection Act in a 417-3 vote. The legislation would direct federal and state regulators to consider standards requiring large-load customers, such as industrial data centers, to cover the full incremental costs of the generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure required to serve them.

However, the measure ultimately stalled in the Senate, as progressive and Democratic lawmakers argued that the House bill was toothless because it did not contain strict mandates forcing states to shift infrastructure costs away from everyday consumers and onto the tech companies. The Senate ultimately voted 57-43 against advancing the legislation in its current form.

Because much of the legal authority over electricity rates and utility pricing remains firmly vested with state-level regulators, the biggest battles over the AI boom will continue to play out in statehouses and public utility commissions across the country. Nevertheless, the newly released Senate investigation provides lawmakers in Washington with a robust set of empirical findings to work with as they consider whether federal standards should govern massive electricity users, corporate transparency around data center deals, and the public subsidies supporting the rapid expansion of the industry.

Senator Van Hollen emphasized that Congress must ultimately pass comprehensive legislation that ensures the corporations building and running these facilities cover the full costs of the energy they consume, rather than pushing those soaring expenses onto the backs of everyday consumers.