This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.

Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Noise ordinances won’t necessarily stop a multi-resonant whine from permeating the area.

What did you do for Earth Day this year? I spent mine visiting a notoriously loud artificial intelligence campus in Virginia’s Data Center Alley. The experience brought home to me just how big a problem noise can be for the communities adjacent to these tech campuses – and how much further local officials have to go in learning how to deal with them.
The morning of April 22, I jumped into a Toyota Highlander and drove it out to the Vantage VA2 data center campus in Sterling, Virginia, smack dab in the middle of a large residential community. The sensation when I got out of the car was unignorable – imagine an all-encompassing, monotonous whoosh accompanied by a low rumble you can feel in your body. It sounds like a jet engine that never stops running or a household vacuum amplified to 11 running at all hours. It was rainy the day I visited and planes from nearby Dulles International Airport were soaring overhead, but neither sound could remotely eclipse the thudding, multi-resonant hum.
If you want to hear the sound for yourself, this video accurately sums it up.
After parking nearby I walked to one of the residential enclaves adjacent to VA2. One resident of a home across the street, who declined to give me her name, said she moved there before the project was completed. When asked how she felt about the noise, she told me, “It’s not as bad as it could be on the other side [of the data center], where all the equipment is.” (While the sound does get louder on the other side, I could clearly hear VA2 from her driveway.)
VA2’s noise has been causing problems for months, as documented by numerous social media posts, local news clips, and a feature published in Politico. It’s doubtful many of those living near the data center wanted it there. The project was built quite quickly – so quickly that Google Earth still shows undeveloped woodlands on the site. Per public filings, Vantage first proposed the facility in 2022 under the county’s fast-track commercial incentive program, an expedited permitting process for specific preferred industries. It was under construction as recently as October 2024, according to images captured by Google Street View.
Noise is one of the most common issues associated with data centers. At least a third of all conflicts over data centers are over noise complaints, and noise is the number one reason for opposition in cases where projects were ultimately canceled, according to Heatmap Pro data.
This issue goes back almost a decade. In 2019, residents of the Phoenix ex-urb Chandler, Arizona, became irate after a loud monotonous hmmmm began emanating from a CyrusOne data center. In that case, CyrusOne traced the noise back to chilling fans, and the company reduced the sound with muffling devices.
Chandler wound up adopting a new ordinance in 2023 requiring sound mitigation measures to prevent companies from exceeding certain ambient noise levels in the surrounding areas. That did nothing to improve the mood of the people who live there, however. Now Chandler, once known as a potential data center development hub, is now firmly in the anti- camp. The city council unanimously rejected a proposed $2.5 billion data center campus in December over noise concerns, despite an expensive lobbying push backed by former Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema.
As data centers spread across the U.S., noise is becoming an ever-more-common complaint. You can hear the familiar hum at a DataOne data center project in Vineland, New Jersey. DataOne told us they “understand concerns about ambient noise in the area” and are operating within the limits of local noise ordinances.
The hum is also in Dowegiac, Michigan, where people living nearby are calling their new Hyperscale Data facility a “noise trap,” with little explanation to date for the issue. Hyperscale Data did not respond to a request for comment.
And the hum is in Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, where the sound from a new Microsoft data center campus rises above any din from rain. The hyperscaling giant is doing more to mitigate the issue than I’m used to seeing from data center developers, however.
On April 15, the company published an update on its own internal investigations into noise complaints. “Although the facility noise levels meet the requirements set by local ordinance, we take this feedback seriously and understand the impact this has had on our neighbors,” the update read. “We anticipated that our systems would need adjustments and create some noise as part of the datacenter startup, but we did not expect the tonal quality of the sound to travel as far as it has.”
To address the noise, Microsoft said it was “manually adjusting the cooling fans” to reduce noise, and that “we expect this change to address community concerns about the tonal humming.” On top of that, the company said it will install “additional sound reduction components” to “provide even further reductions in measured sound levels.” A Microsoft spokesperson told me in an email: “We’ve identified the source of the noise concerns and have implemented changes to significantly reduce sound from our facility.”
It isn’t cooling fans causing the noise at Vantage’s VA2 in Virginia, however. The sound, according to media reports, is coming from gas turbines powering the data center.
VA2 is one of the first in Virginia to function entirely off-grid, a design companies are adopting in order to avoid lengthy grid connection processes. Company spokesman Mark Freeman told me the facility is “fully compliant with all local noise ordinances, and this has been verified by third-party sound studies.”
“Additionally, in line with our commitment, we are actively working with third-party engineers to explore additional sound mitigation options,” Freeman continued. Freeman said “Our goal is to further reduce noise levels where possible and continue to foster a positive environment for everyone.”
Here’s the thing, though: I visited the Vantage campus after initially hearing from the company, and it was loud. Very loud.
I did not bring a decibel meter with me, so I cannot know whether they were operating within legal limits that day. What I do know is that noise ordinances struggle to properly capture sounds in multiple frequency ranges, making high and low frequencies challenging to regulate, according to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, a bipartisan non-profit think tank. Officials representing Loudon County, where VA2 is located, have acknowledged that the local ordinance may need to change in order to address the most distressing frequencies from the data center campus.
“We can change the zoning ordinance and noise ordinance,” Loudon County supervisor Mike Turner told local TV station WUSA9 last week. “Noise can be mitigated. I just don’t believe that the noise problem cannot be solved.”
I wrote Freeman, the Vantage spokesman, to tell him I had visited the VA2 campus and found the noise to be “quite foul.” He replied soon after, telling me that Vantage is going “above and beyond what is required in order to address concerns from nearby residents.” The company is using “targeted enhancements to turbine-related equipment such as dampening equipment, enclosure inlets and enclosure exhausts.” These measures “represent meaningful progress and will help us better evaluate the effectiveness of the broader solutions under consideration.” Freeman also said the company is “actively assessing additional options” focused on “targeted frequency ranges.”
As we continue to track local regulation of data centers, I’m we’ll see many more cases like VA2, in which obtrusive sound prompts forms of regulation we may have never seen before.
Or, people will just hear these noises and say no to more data centers.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And more of the week’s top news around development conflicts.
1. Benton County, Washington – The bellwether for Trump’s apparent freeze on new wind might just be a single project in Washington State: the Horse Heaven wind farm.
2. Box Elder County, Utah – The big data center fight of the week was the Kevin O’Leary-backed project in the middle of the Utah desert. But what actually happened?
3. Durham County, North Carolina – While the Shark Tank data center sucked up media oxygen, a more consequential fight for digital infrastructure is roiling in one of the largest cities in the Tar Heel State.
4. Richland County, Ohio – We close Hotspots on the longshot bid to overturn a renewable energy ban in this deeply MAGA county, which predictably failed.
A conversation with Nick Loris of C3 Solutions
This week’s conversation is with Nick Loris, head of the conservative policy organization C3 Solutions. I wanted to chat with Loris about how he and others in the so-called “eco right” are approaching the data center boom. For years, groups like C3 have occupied a mercurial, influential space in energy policy – their ideas and proposals can filter out into Congress and state legislation while shaping the perspectives of Republican politicians who want to seem on the cutting edge of energy and the environment. That’s why I took note when in late April, Loris and other right-wing energy wonks dropped a set of “consumer-first” proposals on transmission permitting reform geared toward addressing energy demand rising from data center development. So I’m glad Loris was available to lay out his thoughts with me for the newsletter this week.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
How is the eco right approaching permitting reform in the data center boom?
I would say the eco-right broadly speaking is thinking of the data center and load growth broadly as a tremendous and very real opportunity to advance permitting and regulatory reforms at the federal and state level that would enable the generation and linear infrastructure – transmission lines or pipelines – to meet the demand we’re going to see. Not just for hyperscalers and data centers but the needs of the economy. It also sees this as an opportunity to advance tech-neutral reforms where if it makes sense for data centers to get power from virtual power plants, solar, and storage, natural gas, or co-locate and invest in an advanced reactor, all options should be on the table. Fundamentally speaking, if data centers are going to pay for that infrastructure, it brings even greater opportunity to reduce the cost of these technologies. Data centers being a first mover and needing the power as fast as possible could be really helpful for taking that step to get technologies that have a price premium, too.
When it comes to permitting, how important is permitting with respect to “speed-to-power”? What ideas do you support given the rush to build, keeping in mind the environmental protection aspect?
You don’t build without sufficient protections to air quality, water quality, public health, and safety in that regard.
Where I see the fundamental need for permitting reform is, take a look at all the environmental statutes at the federal level and analyze where they’re needing an update and modernization to maintain rigorous environmental standards but build at a more efficient pace. I know the National Environmental Policy Act and the House bill, the SPEED Act, have gotten lots of attention and deservedly so. But also it’s taking a look at things like the Clean Water Act, when states can abuse authority to block pipelines or transmission lines, or the Endangered Species Act, where litigation can drag on for a lot of these projects.
Are there any examples out there of your ideal permitting preferences, prioritizing speed-to-power while protecting the environment? Or is this all so new we’re still in the idea phase?
It’s a little bit of both. For example, there are some states with what’s called a permit-by-rule system. That means you get the permit as long as you meet the environmental standards in place. You have to be in compliance with all the environmental laws on the books but they’ll let them do this as long as they’re monitored, making sure the compliance is legitimate.
One of the structural challenges with some state laws and federal laws is they’re more procedural statutes and a mother may I? approach to permitting. Other statutes just say they’ll enforce rules and regulations on the books but just let companies build projects. Then look at a state like Texas, where they allow more permits rather quickly for all kinds of energy projects. They’ve been pretty efficient at building everything from solar and storage to oil and gas operations.
I think there’s just many different models. Are we early in the stages? There’s a tremendous amount of ideas and opportunities out there. Everything from speeding up interconnection queues to consumer regulated electricity, which is kind of a bring-your-own-power type of solution where companies don’t have to answer or respond to utilities.
It sounds like from your perspective you want to see a permitting pace that allows speed-to-power while protecting the environment.
Yeah, that’s correct. I mean, in the case of a natural gas turbine, if they’re in compliance with the regulations at the state and federal level I don’t have an issue with that. I more so have an issue if they’re disregarding rules at the federal or state level.
We know data centers can be built quickly and we know energy infrastructure cannot. I don’t know if they’ll ever get on par with one another but I do think there are tremendous opportunities to make those processes more efficient. Not just for data centers but to address the cost concerns Americans are seeing across the board.
Do you think the data center boom is going to lead to lots more permitting reform being enacted? Or will the backlash to new projects stop all that?
I think the fundamental driver of permitting reform will be higher energy prices and we’ll need more supply to have more reliability. You just saw NERC put out a level 3 warning about the stability of the grid, driven by data centers. People really pay attention to this when prices are rising.
Will data centers help or hurt the cause? I think that remains to be seen. If there’s opportunities for data centers to pay for infrastructure, including what they’re using, there are areas where projects have been good partners in communities. If they’re the ones taking the opportunity to invest, and they can ensure ratepayers won’t be footing the bill for the power infrastructure, I think they’ll be more of an asset for permitting reform than a harm.
The general public angst against data centers is – trying to think of the right word here – a visceral reaction. It snowballed on itself. Hopefully there’s a bit of an opportunity for a reset and broader understanding of what legitimate concerns are and where we can have better education.
And I’m certainly not shilling for the data centers. I’m here to say they can be good partners and allies in meeting our energy needs.
I’m wondering from your vantage point, what are you hearing from the companies themselves? Is it about a need to build faster? What are they telling you about the backlash to their projects?
When I talk to industry, speed-to-power has been their number one two and three concern. That is slightly shifting because of the growing angst about data centers. Even a few years ago, when developers were engaging with state legislatures, they were hearing more questions than answers. But it’s mostly about how companies can connect to the grid as fast as possible, or whether they can co-locate energy.
Okay, but going back to what you just said about the backlash here. As this becomes more salient, including in Republican circles, is the trendline for the eco-right getting things built faster or tackling these concerns head on?
To me it's a yes, and.
I would broaden this out to be not just the eco right but also Abundance progressives, Abundance conservatives, and libertarians. We need to address these issues head on – with better education, better community engagement. Make sure people know what is getting built. I mean, the Abundance movement as a whole is trying to address those systemic problems.
It’s also an opportunity for the necessary policy reform that has plagued energy development in the U.S. for decades. I see this from an eco right perspective and an abundance progressive perspective that it's an opportunity to say why energy development matters. For families, for the entire U.S. energy economy, and for these hyperscalers.
But if you don’t win in the court of public opinion, none of this is going to matter. We do need to listen to the communities. It’s not an either or here.
And future administrations will learn from his extrajudicial success.
President Donald Trump is now effectively blocking any new wind projects in the United States, according to the main renewables trade group, using the federal government’s power over all things air and sky to grind a routine approval process to a screeching halt.
So far, almost everything Trump has done to target the wind energy sector has been defeated in court. His Day 1 executive order against the wind industry was found unconstitutional. Each of his stop work orders trying to shut down wind farms were overruled. Numerous moves by his Interior Department were ruled illegal.
However, since the early days of Trump 2.0, renewable energy industry insiders have been quietly skittish about a potential secret weapon: the Federal Aviation Administration. Any structure taller than 200 feet must be approved to not endanger commercial planes – that’s an FAA job. If the FAA decided to indefinitely seize up the so-called “no hazard” determinations process, legal and policy experts have told me it would potentially pose an existential risk to all future wind development.
Well, this is now the strategy Trump is apparently taking. Over the weekend, news broke that the Defense Department is refusing to sign off on things required to complete the FAA clearance process. From what I’ve heard from industry insiders, including at the American Clean Power Association, the issues started last summer but were limited in scale, primarily impacting projects that may have required some sort of deal to mitigate potential impacts on radar or other military functions.
Over the past few weeks, according to ACP, this once-routine process has fully deteriorated and companies are operating with the understanding FAA approvals are on pause because the Department of Defense (or War, if you ask the administration) refuses to sign off on anything. The military is given the authority to weigh in and veto these decisions through a siting clearinghouse process established under federal statute. But the trade group told me this standstill includes projects where there are no obvious impacts to military operations, meaning there aren’t even any bases or defense-related structures nearby.
One energy industry lawyer who requested anonymity to speak candidly on the FAA problems told me, “This is the strategy for how you kill an industry while losing every case: just keep coming at the industry. Create an uninvestable climate and let the chips fall where they may.”
I heard the same from Tony Irish, a former career attorney for the Interior Department, including under Trump 1.0, who told me he essentially agreed with that attorney’s assessment.
“One of the major shames of the last 15 months is this loss of the presumption of regularity,” Irish told me. “This underscores a challenge with our legal system. They can find ways to avoid courts altogether – and it demonstrates a unilateral desire to achieve an end regardless of the legality of it, just using brute force.”
In a statement to me, the Pentagon confirmed its siting clearinghouse “is actively evaluating land-based wind projects to ensure they do not impair national security or military operations, in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements.” The FAA declined to comment on whether the country is now essentially banning any new wind projects and directed me to the White House. Then in an email, White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly told me the Pentagon statement “does not ‘confirm’” the country instituted a de facto ban on new wind projects. Kelly did not respond to a follow up question asking for clarification on the administration’s position.
Faced with a cataclysmic scenario, the renewable energy industry decided to step up to the bully pulpit. The American Clean Power Association sent statements to the Financial Times, The New York Times and me confirming that at least 165 wind projects are now being stalled by the FAA determination process, representing about 30 gigawatts of potential electricity generation. This also apparently includes projects that negotiated agreements with the government to mitigate any impacts to military activities. The trade group also provided me with a statement from its CEO Jason Grumet accusing the Trump administration of “actively driving the debate” over federal permitting “into the ditch by abusing the current permitting system” – a potential signal for Democrats in Congress to raise hell over this.
Indeed, on permitting reform, the Trump team may have kicked a hornet’s nest. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Ranking Member Martin Heinrich – a key player in congressional permitting reform talks – told me in a statement that by effectively blocking all new wind projects, the Trump administration “undercuts their credibility and bipartisan permitting reform.” California Democratic Rep. Mike Levin said in an interview Tuesday that this incident means Heinrich and others negotiating any federal permitting deal “should be cautious in how we trust but verify.”
But at this point, permitting reform drama will do little to restore faith that the U.S. legal and regulatory regime can withstand such profound politicization of one type of energy. There is no easy legal remedy to these aerospace problems; none of the previous litigation against Trump’s attacks on wind addressed the FAA, and as far as we know the military has not in its correspondence with energy developers cited any of the regulatory or policy documents that were challenged in court.
Actions like these have consequences for future foreign investment in U.S. energy development. Last August, after the Transportation Department directed the FAA to review wind farms to make sure they weren’t “a danger to aviation,” government affairs staff for a major global renewables developer advised the company to move away from wind in the U.S. market because until the potential FAA issues were litigated it would be “likely impossible to move forward with construction of any new wind projects.” I am aware this company has since moved away from actively developing wind projects in the U.S. where they had previously made major investments as recently as 2024.
Where does this leave us? I believe the wind industry offers a lesson for any developers of large, politically controversial infrastructure – including data centers. Should the federal government wish to make your business uninvestable, it absolutely will do so and the courts cannot stop them.