H.R. 9262

H.R. 9262: To protect the authority of local governments to make zoning decisions regarding data center development, and to require community benefit agreements as a condition for Federal tax incentives.

Introduced Robert Bresnahan (R) HOUSE_BILL — 119th Congress
Plain English Summary

H.R. 9262 aims to ensure that local governments retain the authority to make decisions about zoning for data center development. It also requires that any federal tax incentives provided for data centers be accompanied by community benefit agreements, which are agreements that outline how the data center will contribute to the local community.

Positive Media Summary

Supporters of H.R. 9262 have praised the bill for empowering local governments and ensuring that community interests are prioritized in data center developments. Advocates believe that the requirement for community benefit agreements will lead to more responsible development that considers local needs and enhances community resources.

Negative Media Summary

Critics of H.R. 9262 argue that the bill could hinder economic growth by imposing additional regulations on data center development. Some believe that the requirement for community benefit agreements may complicate the process and deter investment in the technology sector, potentially leading to job losses and reduced economic opportunities.

Conflict of Interest Analysis Deep Analysis
3/10
Risk Level
Low
Total Donations
$0
PAC Percentage
0%
Policy Area
Taxation

While there are no direct industry overlaps between the sponsor's top donor industries and the subject matter of H.R. 9262, the lobbying activity in the bill's policy area raises some concerns. Notably, Monroe Energy, LLC, and Upstate Niagara Cooperative, Inc. each contributed $10,000, while Agri-Mark, Inc. also contributed $10,000. These contributions could suggest a potential interest in the zoning decisions related to data center development, particularly if these entities have operations that could be affected by local zoning laws. However, the lack of direct industry overlap indicates that the risk of conflict is moderate rather than high. Voters should be aware of the influence of these donors in shaping legislation that could impact local governance and community agreements.

Lobbying Activity — Who's Pushing?

Organizations that lobbied on issues related to this bill's policy area.

Client Lobbying Firm Amount
AMERICAN SUBCONTRACTOR ASSOCIATION OSCAR POLICY GROUP, LLC $30,000
FCA INTERNATIONAL OSCAR POLICY GROUP, LLC $25,000
AMERICAN COUNCIL OF INDEPENDENT LABORATORIES OSCAR POLICY GROUP, LLC $20,000
FINISHING TRADES INSTITUTE OF THE MID ATLANTIC REGION OSCAR POLICY GROUP, LLC $15,000
STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 420 OSCAR POLICY GROUP, LLC $12,000
MONROE ENERGY, LLC OSCAR POLICY GROUP, LLC $10,000
UPSTATE NIAGARA COOPERATIVE, INC. OSCAR POLICY GROUP, LLC $10,000
AGRI-MARK, INC OSCAR POLICY GROUP, LLC $10,000
LABOR & ENERGY ALLIANCE OSCAR POLICY GROUP, LLC undisclosed
BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS MIDDLE TENNESSEE OSCAR POLICY GROUP, LLC undisclosed
BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS INDEPENDENCE REGION OSCAR POLICY GROUP, LLC undisclosed
EKLUTNA, INC EKLUTNA, INC. undisclosed
CARPENTERS' COMPANY OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA OSCAR POLICY GROUP, LLC undisclosed
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION - PENN-DEL-JERSEY CHAPTER OSCAR POLICY GROUP, LLC undisclosed
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DRILLING CONTRACTORS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCATION OF DRILLING CONTRACTORS undisclosed

Source: Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) filings, 2026

Sponsor's Top Donor Industries

Top industries funding Robert Bresnahan, ranked by total contributions.

Health Professionals $120,000,000
Individuals: $120,000,000 PACs: $0
Retired $37,500,000
Individuals: $37,500,000 PACs: $0

Source: OpenSecrets.org (Center for Responsive Politics)

TheBillRoom is free and independent. No ads, no subscriptions, no political funding. If this analysis was useful, reader support keeps it running.
Support Us