At a glance
- Opposition to data center infrastructure moved from localized complaints into a campaign pillar in the US midterms, Litovsky writes.
- The issue drew $173 million (€155 million) in ad spending, and exit polls showed it was a critical deciding factor for 56% of registered voters, according to Litovsky.
- For allocators underwriting data center assets financed to run for decades, community standing is a diligence item efficiency metrics do not capture.
Local opposition blocked or delayed about $130bn of US data center projects in the first quarter of 2026, roughly matching all of 2025, according to Data Center Watch research cited by Alejandro Litovsky in a Nov. 6 IPE Real Assets column.
Opposition to data center infrastructure moved from localized complaints into a campaign pillar in the US midterms, Litovsky writes.
The issue drew $173 million (€155 million) in ad spending, and exit polls showed it was a critical deciding factor for 56% of registered voters, according to Litovsky.
For allocators underwriting data center assets financed to run for decades, community standing is a diligence item efficiency metrics do not capture. A site's permitting, power access, expansion and eventual sale depend on that social consent, not only in the US.
Water stress and grid flexibility
The European Commission's A-to-G sustainability rating for EU data centers requires disclosure of local water stress and grid flexibility. Litovsky argues an A grade for localized efficiency still leaves a facility exposed: an absolute claim on a constrained aquifer or an over-allocated grid can trigger severe community blowback, even if the site's per-unit water or power efficiency improves.
"The bottom line is that the AI boom increasingly depends on the permission of the communities where its infrastructure is located," Litovsky wrote.
The bottom line is that the AI boom increasingly depends on the permission of the communities where its infrastructure is locatedAlejandro Litovsky, founder and CEO of Earth Security, writing in IPE Real Assets
For a sponsor or fund allocator, the open question is whether a site's hold on water and power is absolute or merely efficient per unit of compute. In Litovsky's account, the permitting calendar, rather than the efficiency grade, is the binding constraint on the projects counted in the $130bn figure.
Reported by the Sectors desk from IPE Real Assets. Published . Corrections