Secrecy Is Killing Data Center Deals

The data center industry does not have a communication problem. It has a transparency problem.

Across the country, projects are being delayed, contested and, in some cases, stopped before construction begins. The common thread is not always power or water. It is process.

Communities are finding out too late, with too little information, about projects that will reshape their local infrastructure. That is not a public relations issue. It is a development failure.

The use of nondisclosure agreements, redacted filings and accelerated approvals has become common in many jurisdictions. These tools are often justified as necessary to protect proprietary information or to maintain competitive positioning.

In some cases, they are justified. But, when projects rely too heavily on secrecy, they create the very opposition they are trying to avoid.

When residents discover that key decisions were made behind closed doors, trust collapses. When basic information about water use, energy demand or site impact is withheld, communities assume the worst. Once that perception takes hold, the project is no longer being evaluated on its merits. It is being rejected on principle.

The industry often treats transparency as a concession — something to offer once a project is already underway or facing resistance.

That approach is backward.

Transparency is not a moral position. It is a development strategy.

Projects that disclose early, clearly and consistently tend to move faster. They face fewer surprises in public hearings, fewer legal challenges and less political resistance. They give communities time to understand, question and adjust before positions harden.

Projects that do not take this approach tend to follow a predictable path. Late disclosure, rapid opposition, prolonged delays and, in some cases, cancellation.

This pattern is now visible across multiple states. And it is accelerating.

What was once a localized reaction has evolved into a more coordinated response. Advocacy groups are sharing information, comparing projects and training communities on how to challenge approvals. Across multiple markets, opposition groups have used limited disclosure around power demand, water use or development agreements as a focal point for organizing resistance because it is the easiest argument to understand. You do not need to interpret megawatts or cooling systems to understand that something was hidden from you.

That simplicity makes secrecy a liability. It also makes it unnecessary.

Most of the information that communities are asking for is not proprietary. It is foundational. Expected power demand, water sourcing, general site plans, noise levels and construction timelines — these are not trade secrets. They are inputs that determine local impact.

Withholding them does not create advantage. It creates friction.

The next phase of data center development will require a different standard.

Disclosure should not begin after land is secured and permits are filed. It should begin at the point where a project becomes real. Before assumptions harden, before narratives form, before opposition organizes.

That does not mean every detail must be public immediately. It means the elements that affect communities should be visible, understandable and consistent across projects.

Right now, there is no common framework for that. Each project is disclosed differently. Key data points are missing or inconsistent. Communities are left to piece together information from fragmented sources, often under time pressure.

That environment does not produce informed decisions. It produces resistance. It also creates risk for developers and capital providers.

A project that becomes defined by what it hides will spend more time navigating process than executing development. In a market where speed matters, that delay is costly.

The industry has a choice: It can continue to treat transparency as a negotiation, offering just enough information to move a project forward; or it can treat transparency as a baseline, embedding disclosure into the development process itself.

Only one of those paths scales.

Because in this cycle, the projects that succeed will not be the ones that reveal the least. They will be the ones that reveal enough, early enough, to earn the right to proceed.

And once a project becomes a story about secrecy, it is already behind.

Suhail Y. Tayeb is clinical assistant professor at New York University’s Schack Institute of Real Estate and director of the Center for the Sustainable Built Environment.