Building Data Center Infrastructure Requires Trust, Not Just Permits

Local opposition delayed or blocked at least $130 billion of planned data center investment in the first quarter of 2026, the most in any single quarter on record, according to Roshan Shah, a data center infrastructure developer. Shah argues that the industry's dismissal of protests as NIMBYism is wrong and that developers must engage communities early to build trust, as community engagement is as critical as permits and financing.

Building Data Center Infrastructure Requires Trust, Not Just Permits Data center protests signal a trust gap. Developers must engage communities early to align AI infrastructure with local needs, writes Roshan Shah. Roshan Shah /author/roshan-shah August 3, 2026 Across America, billions of dollars in data-center investment are encountering an unexpected obstacle: local resistance. The industry’s response has largely been to dismiss the opposition as misinformation, NIMBYism /sustainability/get-off-my-lawn-you-crazy-data-centers- , or a communications problem to be solved with better public relations /data-center-site-selection/bridging-the-divide-how-data-centers-are-addressing-community-concerns and cleaner talking points. That instinct is wrong. The protests are a signal, not noise. They are evidence that the industry building the infrastructure for the AI economy has failed at one of its most basic responsibilities: earning trust from the communities in which it wants to operate. I say this as someone developing data center infrastructure. I believe these projects are essential to America’s economic and technological future. I also believe communities are right to ask hard questions about what is happening in their backyards. Both things can be true. The record on data centers is actually quite strong. They are generally quiet, low-impact neighbors that contribute significantly to local tax bases, support schools and first responders, and often finance upgrades to electric infrastructure that benefit the broader community. By most economic measures, they have been remarkably attractive municipal tenants. The current backlash isn’t a rejection of that record. It is a deeply human reaction to rapid change and to an industry that too often appears in a community only after major decisions have already been made. The consequences of that failure are becoming impossible to ignore. In the first quarter of this year alone, local opposition delayed or blocked at least $130 billion of planned data center investment https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertszczerba/2026/07/22/130-billion-in-ai-data-centers-stalled-the-bottleneck-is-consent/ , the most in any single quarter on record and nearly as much as in all of 2025. Every delayed project represents capital sitting idle, postponed infrastructure improvements, and a widening gap between America’s AI ambitions and its ability to build the facilities that make those ambitions possible. Community Engagement: A Critical Path to Success Community engagement isn’t a soft obligation. It is a critical-path item, every bit as important as permits, financing, and power procurement. The electricity debate illustrates the challenge. Residents hear projections that data centers could account for 9% to 17% of US electricity demand by 2030, up from roughly 4.5% today, and naturally wonder what that means for grid reliability and utility bills. Those concerns aren’t irrational. But there is another side to the story that the industry has often failed to explain. Much of the investment now flowing into transmission lines, substations, and generation is being driven directly by demand from data centers. Earlier this year, the regional grid operator PJM approved $11.8 billion in transmission upgrades, including a multibillion-dollar backbone project in Virginia, largely because new load growth demanded it. The projects causing anxiety about grid strain are also helping finance the grid modernization America desperately needs. When developers fail to explain that – clearly, early, and repeatedly – they create an information vacuum. And information vacuums are always filled with worst-case scenarios. This is where the industry keeps making the same mistake. It conflates two distinct questions: whether a project is technically sound and whether a community has reason to trust it. To build trust and credibility, both must be true. A technically excellent project can still fail if residents feel they are hearing about it too late, being talked down to or being asked to absorb change without understanding the benefits and trade-offs. Building Trust Before Breaking Ground Trust cannot be built retroactively. It must be built before the first permit application is filed, before opposition organizes, and before a city council meeting becomes a referendum on whether developers can be believed at all. Every community has a different fingerprint. The concerns of an agricultural town won’t be the same as those of a suburban community or an industrial corridor. A generic corporate presentation cannot answer deeply local questions. Developers have to show up early, listen carefully and incorporate what they hear into the project itself. The race to build AI infrastructure is real, and the stakes are enormous. But the companies that ultimately succeed won’t simply be the ones with the fastest permits or the largest balance sheets. They will be the ones who understand a simple truth: In modern infrastructure development, local trust is the critical path. Public trust is not an entitlement for our industry. It is something we must earn. And if we wait until the protests begin, we’ll have already lost it. Roshan Shah is co-founder and CEO of Decimal Digital Currency, which is developing Project Eagle Ridge, a data center project in Monroeville, Ohio.