Amazon’s decision to stop using nondisclosure agreements with government agencies removes one obstacle to public scrutiny of data-center negotiations. It does not resolve the harder questions: who pays for grid upgrades, how much water a site uses, what tax concessions cost and whether promised jobs persist after construction.
The policy change is real but incomplete
Amazon’s published data-center tenets state that the company no longer uses NDAs with government agencies in negotiations. The same document reports a 2025 power-usage effectiveness of 1.14. PUE compares total facility energy with the energy used by computing equipment; lower is better, but a fleet-wide ratio does not reveal a specific project’s load, water use or local infrastructure bill.
Removing NDAs should make it easier for residents and investors to inspect incentives before approval. It can also reduce project delays if communities believe material terms are visible. Yet commercial contracts may still contain confidential pricing, and local governments may publish data in inconsistent formats. Transparency has value only when disclosures are comparable.
Execution risk has moved into permitting and infrastructure
For hyperscalers, community opposition can lengthen development schedules and strand land or power reservations. The financial mechanism is straightforward: delayed energization postpones cloud capacity while interest and construction costs continue. Public disclosure may reduce that risk, but it can also expose unusually rich incentives or resource burdens that make approval harder.
What investors should watch
Investors should look for project-level electricity demand, water source, expected jobs, tax abatements and responsibility for transmission upgrades. Amazon’s NDA change is a governance improvement, not proof that local trade-offs are favorable.
BTI's bottom line
The next step is standardized reporting that lets communities compare promises with outcomes after a facility opens.