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.
A conversation with the Guardrails Alliance’s Shaunna Thomas.
This week’s Q&A is with Shaunna Thomas of the Democrat-allied super PAC Guardrails Alliance, which describes itself as “not anti-technology” but supportive of AI “rules, accountability, and a government that actually represents the public.” Part of that AI accountability they’re calling for is on data centers.
After the midterms, Guardrails Alliance sent a memorandum to all House and Senate Democratic offices arguing for AI and data center accountability to be a key part of their message and plans heading into the new Congress. Described as a “playbook for how to understand and channel anxieties about AI and data centers,” the document laid out “key narratives” that they said voters who care about these issues want to see reflected and echoed by their politics. They said the push against data centers could help Democrats build more lasting political power.
I reached out and asked if Thomas could explain further what all of this means to my readers. She kindly obliged.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Let’s start with the elections. What were your takeaways when it came to what voters want to see on data centers?
I think the elections were a rebuke of the status quo on a number of fronts. We saw across the board that people are frustrated with what amounts to legalized corruption and the forcing without consent of new technology, and new infrastructure to support a technology that they didn’t ask for in ways that are harmful to their lives and the country.
What we saw in polling is that the data center backlash is one of the most bipartisan political issues of our time, driven by everything from noise pollution to rate hikes to Big Tech trying to steamroll state and local governments. Americans are sick and tired of the AI industry trying to control our lives by building data centers in our communities, which goes along with trying to control our data and who represents us in government. The AI industry was also trying to spend a lot on elections trying to control the outcome.
When we dig deeper on all that, it’s not just about elections. They’re seeing this unholy alliance between Big Tech and the Trump administration.
In the post-election analysis laid out in that memo, you explain these key narratives that you think Democrats should pick up against the tech sector. Can you explain how you developed these?
What we dug into during the primaries and the lead-up to the general election was questions in focus groups and polling with Republicans and Democrats about what was behind the frustration. Is this just about buildings they don’t want in their backyard or is this connected to AI and bigger picture concerns over who makes choices? About control? The data centers people were most opposed to were data centers specifically for AI, which was a really important indicator it was both/and.
We then started to talk to voters in Ohio and Iowa and Michigan about what they’d want to see in terms of changes, in terms of new leadership, how they would want to see this framed. What was appealing? We tested a number of frames and these key narratives are a compilation of that data. So for example, a key narrative says, The AI oligarchs and their political allies are wildly out of step with a supermajority of the public. There’s also sample messaging under it in the memo. And it’s a reflection of the sentiment and the tone and the language a lot of people used when they got into robust conversations about what they’re really concerned about or what they want to see their leaders doing differently.
Can you say more about these focus groups? And can you say more about what you saw in terms of bipartisan shared concern around not just data centers but these messages you’re bringing up?
I can tell you about some of the key findings of the focus groups we did in Michigan and Ohio and Iowa in August and September. People are generally open to the idea AI can have some benefit to their lives, and they’re open to using it personally. But everyone we talked to expressed some concern about the pace it was being developed. You can see technology having value but also see there’s no regulation in place or guardrails around the technology itself.
Most people we spoke to expressed concerns about how the technology has been affecting society and the environment — that came up a lot in data center conversations. People are also concerned about the role chatbots could have in their children’s lives, and that AI could replace teachers.
It’s also a lot of concern about and a lack of confidence in either government regulators or AI companies to properly regulate the technology. You saw more support for regulators at the state level and people deeply opposed to federal pre-emption, because they see more evidence of democracy working at the state level as opposed to the federal level.
People express mixed reviews about the specific policy solutions. What we’re seeing is people see AI as a vehicle for a small handful to amass more wealth and power. I don’t think we have had enough of a robust debate about how you deal with that problem.
So, on that point in particular, I want to drill down. What do we know about what voters want to see? What does accountability or guardrails look like to them?
First of all, there’s blanket support for federal regulations in general to deal with the way the technology is developed and deployed. We see a lot of clarity from voters about the fact they may not have a lot of confidence the federal government will step in. They want to see it.
When it comes to the economy, where there’s still broad public support is taxing billionaires and CEOs of these companies and raising the minimum wage and raising the social safety net. People’s interest in seeing that move forward has been growing in intensity.
On AI specifically, people don’t want to have a conversation about distribution of wealth without a conversation about distribution of power. They don’t want to be bribed to accept the acceleration of AI in their lives. They want to know that the power of those companies to do what they’re doing is going to be significantly limited and safety guardrails are put in place to keep us all safe from what the new technology is capable of.
I think once the safety conversation is step one. Step two is the conversation about how you distribute wealth from a technology built on other people’s labor and intellectual property.
On the concern about bribes, we’ve been reporting on Trump’s call for cash payments to communities to accept data centers. Are you telling me proposals like that might not be a good political strategy?
It was precisely because Trump was talking about it that we heard it brought up in focus groups, and how it was described was that voters may get some short term incentive to accept a technology they don’t trust is designed to help them fundamentally. They believe it is being deployed to more deeply consolidate power and wealth. And they don’t want that. When the president or a big AI company says they agree with it, it’ll have an impact on how the idea is perceived.
It has to also be coupled with a set of policies that are putting democratic governance over the technology itself before its deployment. People want to see technology isn’t going to continue to advance without guardrails.
Distinct from Trump’s data center dividend, some policymakers have suggested a “data dividend” — a distribution of wealth from the usage of AI products because they’re using people’s data. That’s more of what we’re talking about.
What do we know about what the public wants to see regarding data centers?
It’s important we recognize local leaders have had demands driven by their local communities. But as a structural matter, the public sees slowing down data centers as a mechanism for slowing down the project of AI generally. It remains an open question about how you do that.
There are federal policymakers working on a set of solutions that could create more space for people at the local level to be in the driver’s seat on when, how, or if data centers get built. I think we’ll see more proposals on that front.
So where do you think this conversation goes next?
I would expect the public to continue to make demands from policymakers and I would expect the Big Tech sector to continue down the path they’re going, which is, we were always Democrats and pro-regulation all the time. This will look like policies resembling always being okay with regulation but actually avoid putting checks on their power. And that’ll mean the public has even more at stake and the government has an even bigger obligation to make sure AI is deployed for public benefit as opposed to for the profits of a few companies and CEOs.
Plus more of the week’s biggest development fights.
1. New York City — We have a new must-watch offshore wind lawsuit with potential implications for the entire sector — and this time, it’s from lobstermen seeking damages.
2. Hinds County, Mississippi — The largest proposed solar farm in Mississippi is moving forward after an appeals court rejected arguments from aggrieved local residents that it had been improperly approved.
3. Dakota County, Minnesota — I’m scrutinizing a lawsuit against a data center developer centering on allegedly improper permitting of its cooling technology.
4. Polk County, Florida — Will the Sunshine State remain a challenging place for data centers after Ron DeSantis? A test case could reveal the future quite quickly.
Trump’s “data center dividend” appears to have backfired. Our latest poll results help explain why.
This year’s midterm elections called into question the efficacy of a push to pay local residents directly in exchange for building data centers.
Before the elections, I profiled the campaign for politicians to embrace the data center “dividend,” a policy idea modeled off Alaska’s Permanent Fund, which doles out checks to residents from profits off state oil, gas and mineral royalties. The Bitcoin Policy Institute, a tech policy think tank, was one of the first to trumpet the concept, but it was quickly taken up by President Donald Trump, who started raising it in speeches and on social media. “If companies want to make their Data Centers popular, pay the community, and/or individuals within the community, a ‘dividend,’” Trump posted to Truth Social on October 21.
Clearly the idea didn’t stop the bleeding. Democrats trounced Trump’s party in the midterms on a message that was heavy on attacks against data centers. But that still doesn’t explain why direct payments did so little to move the American public.
A Heatmap Pro poll conducted in early-to-mid October, right before the midterm elections, gives us an answer. As part of a broader survey of 2,500 registered voters, we asked about the idea — what we believe to be the first independent poll on direct payments for data centers by a news organization. We asked respondents whether there was a specific dollar amount they’d accept as a one-time cash payment in exchange for a data center being built near them. We also gave them the option to say no amount of money was sufficient.
Shockingly, a majority of people surveyed said they’d reject the data center cash payment in any amount. Among those who said they’d actually take the money, the median figure was around $10,000. The average was a whopping $146,000, skewed by the number of people who wrote $999,999, the maximum allowed by the survey.
This tracks what we’re seeing play out in communities where developers have tried this idea. In Hazle Township, Pennsylvania, NorthPoint — developer of an Amazon-linked data center project — proposed $10,000 cash payments to residents, no catch. Residents compared it to a bribe. In De Soto, Kansas, data center developer Digital Realty is offering annual $1,000 tax credits for a decade to neighbors of its proposed data center project. That proposal has been reportedly met with mixed reviews, too.
Clearly one of the problems here is that data centers not only face public perception issues around their local impacts, but are also more broadly associated with systemic inequality in the U.S. economy. The same Heatmap Pro survey found that a majority of voters believed AI companies have more control over the government than the oil and gas industry, pharmaceutical companies, banks, or other large industries.
Shaunna Thomas, executive director of Democratic-allied super PAC Guardrails Alliance, told me that during the campaign season they found that residents often associated the dividends with bribes, and that the president’s support for direct payments ultimately fed into voter sentiments about the tech sector controlling the government and society.
“People don’t want to have a conversation about distribution of wealth disconnected from a conversation about distribution of power,” Thomas said. “Specifically because Trump was saying that, we started hearing from voters in focus groups that it didn’t work for them. They’re hearing it as a bribe. They’re hearing they may get some sort of short-term economic or financial incentive to accept a technology they don’t trust is designed to help them.”
The Heatmap Pro survey results about cash payments ultimately reveal how emotionally driven the data center debate has become, said Sam Lyman of the Bitcoin Policy Institute. I asked Lyman to respond to the results because I thought they called into question the political effectiveness of the proposal we’d discussed months earlier. Lyman stipulated that he thinks the one-time payment nature of the question may have undermined the results, saying he prefers the dividends be paid out “in perpetuity.” But he acknowledged they also show “there’s still a lot of education to be done on data centers, what they do, and the impacts they have on the places where they’re built.”
“I think there’s a lot of Americans out there who have legitimate concerns that the future economy doesn’t include them. That’s something that needs to be addressed,” said Lyman, who said he laid part of the blame on what he called “irresponsible rhetoric” from AI industry executives about their technology’s impacts on society. “With data center dividends, the idea behind this policy is to help Americans understand the AI economy includes them. To give them a very material stake in that economy as it gets built out, especially in the rural communities that make data centers possible in the first place.”