PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1] · D–NV
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Oct 16, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10465 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10465 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10465 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10465 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-16 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Public Lands Accountability Act would require environmental review and public input when the Bureau of Land Management issues, changes, or renews approvals for qualifying large data centers on public lands. Reviews would examine electricity use for cooling and water use and impacts. Applicants seeking permission to use public land through a right-of-way would also have to submit workforce plans describing expected jobs and whether they plan to pay prevailing wages.
This Act may be cited as the Public Lands Accountability Act.
The issuance, amendment, modification, renewal, or revision by the Director of the Bureau of Land Management of any permit, lease, or other authorization for the use, occupancy, or development of public lands for a hyperscale data center shall be considered a major Federal action that significantly affects the quality of the human environment
shall offer the public an opportunity to provide feedback on a draft version of each environmental impact statement prepared pursuant to subsection (a)
the amount of electric energy and water expected to be consumed by the cooling system of the hyperscale data center during such period of 10 years
The Secretary shall require an applicant for a right-of-way for the use, occupancy, or development of public lands for a hyperscale data center to submit, as an addendum to the application for the right-of-way, a workforce plan
Whether the applicant plans to compensate workers who are constructing the hyperscale data center prevailing wages (as defined in section 3141 of title 40, United States Code).
The proposal defines a covered “hyperscale data center” as a commercial or industrial electricity consumer at a single site, behind one or more electricity connection points, with peak electricity demand of at least 50 megawatts. Its electricity must primarily run information technology infrastructure and related systems for data storage or computing applications and services.
The term hyperscale data center means a commercial or industrial consumer of electric energy that— (A) is located at a single site behind one or more points of interconnection; (B) has a peak load of 50 megawatts or greater; and (C) requires electric energy primarily to operate information technology infrastructure, and related systems, pertaining to data storage or computational applications and services.
Issuing, changing, or renewing a covered Bureau of Land Management authorization would be treated as a major federal action significantly affecting the environment under the National Environmental Policy Act. The bill uses an existing statutory definition of “public lands,” rather than supplying a new definition.
The issuance, amendment, modification, renewal, or revision by the Director of the Bureau of Land Management of any permit, lease, or other authorization for the use, occupancy, or development of public lands for a hyperscale data center shall be considered a major Federal action that significantly affects the quality of the human environment under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
The term public lands has the meaning given such term in section 103 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702).
For each draft environmental impact statement—a document examining environmental effects—the Bureau's Director would have to provide at least 45 days for written public comments and hold at least one public hearing in the affected community.
The Director of the Bureau of Land Management shall offer the public an opportunity to provide feedback on a draft version of each environmental impact statement prepared pursuant to subsection (a) through a written comment period of not less than 45 days and at least one public hearing in the affected community.
Each environmental impact statement would have to estimate, where applicable, water consumed by on-site electricity generation serving the data center. It would also have to estimate electricity and water consumed by cooling. These estimates would cover the 10 years beginning when the authorization is issued, changed, or renewed and would supplement otherwise required environmental analysis.
shall, in addition to the analysis otherwise required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), include in each environmental impact statement prepared pursuant to subsection (a) analysis on— (1) as applicable, the amount of water expected to be consumed in the on-site generation of electricity serving the hyperscale data center during the period of 10 years beginning on the date on which the permit, lease, or other authorization is issued, amended, modifiied, renewed, or revised; (2) the amount of electric energy and water expected to be consumed by the cooling system of the hyperscale data center during such period of 10 years
The environmental review would also have to examine the data center's effects, including cumulative effects, on regional water supplies over the short and long term, the region's ability to withstand drought, and the water source the center uses or expects to use.
the effect, including cumulative effect, of the hyperscale data center on— (A) the short- and long-term supply of water in the region in which the hyperscale data center is proposed to be, or is, located; (B) the drought resilience of such region; and (C) the source of water the hyperscale data center relies upon or is expected to rely upon.
The Director could not use a categorical exclusion—an environmental-review exemption based on a category of actions—for issuing, changing, or renewing a covered data-center authorization.
The Director of the Bureau of Land Management may not apply a categorical exclusion with respect to issuing, amending, modifying, renewing, or revising any permit, lease, or other authorization for the use, occupancy, or development of public lands for a hyperscale data center.
Section 3 would amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act to require workforce plans as additions to applications for rights-of-way, or permission to use public land, for covered data centers. The Secretary would administer this requirement, using the same data-center definition as section 2.
Section 501(b) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1761(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following
The Secretary shall require an applicant for a right-of-way for the use, occupancy, or development of public lands for a hyperscale data center to submit, as an addendum to the application for the right-of-way, a workforce plan
In this paragraph, the term hyperscale data center has the meaning given such term in section 2(e) of the Public Lands Accountability Act.
The workforce plan would report expected construction jobs for the data center and all infrastructure needed to operate it during the five years after the right-of-way is granted, issued, or renewed. It would also report how many construction-related jobs are expected to go to people already living in the state where the center will be built.
The number of jobs that the construction of the hyperscale data center, and all associated infrastructure necessary to operate the hyperscale data center, is expected to create during the period of 5 years beginning on the date on which the right-of-way is granted, issued, or renewed.
The number of construction-related jobs that are expected to be filled by workers who already reside in the State in which the hyperscale data center will be constructed.
Applicants would have to disclose whether they plan to pay construction workers prevailing wages, a wage standard defined in the cited federal law. This provision requires disclosure of the applicant's plans; it does not itself require paying that wage standard.
Whether the applicant plans to compensate workers who are constructing the hyperscale data center prevailing wages (as defined in section 3141 of title 40, United States Code).
The workforce plan would also report permanent jobs expected from construction and operation during the 20 years after the right-of-way is granted, issued, or renewed. This is an estimate-reporting requirement, not a promise that those jobs will materialize.
The number of permanent jobs expected to be created as a result of the construction and operation of the hyperscale data center during the period of 20 years beginning on the date on which the right-of-way is granted, issued, or renewed.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated October 16, 2026, records introduction in the House on September 16, 2026, and referral that day to the Natural Resources and Agriculture committees for provisions within their respective jurisdictions.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-16T08:05:54Z.
2026-09-16: Introduced in House
2026-09-16: Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-16. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not extend to other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential benefit, special exemption, or carve-out was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 16, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI