Erin Brockovich targets ‘culture of secrecy’ surrounding AI data center expansion
Table of Contents
A New Front for Environmental Advocacy
Erin Brockovich, the legal advocate and environmental activist whose fight against Pacific Gas & Electric became a cinematic touchstone, has turned her attention to the invisible infrastructure powering the generative AI boom. Brockovich is now targeting the perceived lack of transparency surrounding the rapid deployment of data centers across the United States, alleging a pattern of corporate secrecy and municipal complicity.
The initiative centers on a newly launched crowdsourced mapping project designed to document the footprint of these facilities. While the tech industry often frames data centers as economic engines bringing jobs and tax revenue to rural or under-developed areas, Brockovich argues that the process of securing these sites is frequently shrouded in non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and closed-door deals.
Crowdsourcing the Digital Footprint
The mapping project, described as a “work in progress,” relies heavily on reports from residents living in the shadow of these massive facilities. According to a recent Substack post from Brockovich, a call for community reports issued in April generated nearly 4,000 submissions within a single month. This volume of responses suggests a growing tension between the urgent needs of hyperscalers—such as Microsoft, Google, and Amazon—and the communities that host their hardware.
While typical environmental concerns regarding data centers focus on electricity consumption and the millions of gallons of water required for cooling, Brockovich notes that the primary grievance from residents isn’t necessarily the technology itself, but the way it arrives. “The single most common concern—more than noise, more than water usage, more than rising utility bills—is the one word that keeps appearing in submission after submission: transparency,” Brockovich wrote.
The NDA Problem and Local Governance
The core of the issue lies in the procurement of land and permits. In many jurisdictions, developers utilize strict NDAs with local officials to keep project details secret until the deal is virtually finalized. By the time the public becomes aware of a proposed data center, the zoning changes have often already been approved, and the legal framework for the project is set.
Brockovich asserts that she is not mounting a blanket crusade against AI or the existence of data centers, but rather attacking the operational methodology of the developers. She points to a recurring cycle: projects are announced only after permits are secured, and developers frequently ignore inquiries from the community once the ground is broken.
The Hidden Costs of AI Scaling
The urgency of this transparency push comes as AI companies race to build the compute capacity necessary for Large Language Models (LLMs). This race has led to an unprecedented spike in demand for power-dense real estate. In states like Virginia, Ohio, and Arizona, the sudden appearance of these “digital warehouses” has placed immense strain on local electrical grids and water tables.
The lack of foresight in these deployments often leads to “infrastructure shocks” where local utility rates spike to fund the upgrades necessary to support a single facility. When these deals are made in secret, residents are left to discover the financial and environmental costs only after they appear on their monthly bills.
As the industry continues to scale, the friction between the speed of AI development and the slow pace of democratic oversight is likely to intensify. By documenting these sites and the grievances associated with them, Brockovich is attempting to create a public record that forces developers and local governments to move away from the shadows and toward a more accountable model of industrial growth.
