By Jane MacVicar

Across North America, various levels of government are grappling with how to deal with the water, energy and land use required for data centers. Protesters are carrying signs with messages like, “thinking is cooler than the global impact of data centers” and many people are genuinely concerned about the excesses required to power and cool these centers. So, what are stakeholders and regulators doing to cool our fears? 

Some companies are using closed-loop designs, where either a glycol cooling system is used or water is reused, with heat as the primary output, but despite these mitigating measures, a United Nations report ( UNU-INWEH Report on Environmental Cost of Artificial Intelligence) found that data centers globally consumed 4.5 trillion litres of water in 2025, with this number expected to double by 2030. Consequentially, the importance of getting regulations in place to preserve water supplies cannot be understated. Examples of recent actions include: 

• Standards to govern how electric public utilities may serve large data center customers, including tariff requirements, cost allocation, demands for flexibility, and ratepayer protections. (New Jersey A796); 
• A temporary moratorium on data center permitting in New York, established on July 14, 2026, making New York the first state to impose such restrictions. ( New York A11560) In addition, New York is preparing an environmental impact report to chart the effects of data center development, create new electric and water rate classes, while a framework is devised for community benefits. 

Many US states are starting by classifying how many megawatts of power usage define a “large scale data center,” and developing rules that are based on the scale of an operation with benchmarks of power use for various levels. ( Alabama Senate Bill 270) 

Other states are setting targets for solar energy with goals, such as 10 percent of the retail electric sales need to be generated by photovoltaic systems by 2030. ( Minnesota HF16) 

Regulatory activity to protect the public’s right to know is also active, where government agencies will be prohibited from entering into non-disclosure agreements that would reduce transparency in the development of large-scale data centers. ( Delaware S 312) 

In areas where water is in short supply, states are finding ways to force data centers to use a portion of recycled water or “reclaimed” water for cooling purposes, to help reduce the strain during local droughts. ( Florida SB 484) 

In May 2026, Hawaii introduced a Senate Resolution to study the impacts of large data centers on local electric utilities, ratepayers, natural resources, and state climate goals. ( Hawaii SR 90) Analyzing these effects is intended to be used to create regulatory safeguards to restrict unchecked large-scale footprints, control costs, prevent shortages of power and water through careful planning, and integrate large new loads into the system. 

Meanwhile, in  Utah, House Bill 76 will force developers to provide clear metrics on liquid cooling consumption. In the Great Salt Lake area, a proposal backed by celebrity investor, Kevin O’Leary has a potentially massive footprint, requiring up to 9 gigawatts of power, generated largely via on-site natural gas, that would be nearly identical to his northern Alberta proposal of a $70-billion, 7.5-gigawatt AI data centre campus. Many Utah residents are worried about the environmental impact in such a sensitive area, so  Utah House Bill 507 was signed into law to restrict local economic support for large load data centers (megawatt capacity loads of 100 MW or greater) and to create a restricted state account (or a dedicated financial fund within the state budget) where specific tax revenues, energy excise fees, or development funds related to large-load industrial facilities are legally segregated and restricted for designated public or regional infrastructure uses. 

By Jane MacVicar

Effective July 1, 2026, Taiwan’s revised Occupational Safety and Health Act includes new rules on bullying prevention, another example of the global application of regulations to cover workplace violence and worker well-being regulations.

Guidelines on Workplace Bullying Prevention Measures  and  Procedures for Local Authorities Handling Complaints Involving Workplace Bullying by Top Executives  combine to create a new framework for dealing with bullying in the workplace. 

This new framework for anti-bullying efforts, announced by the Ministry of Labor identifies definitions to aid employers in identifying behaviors, so that complaints are handled fairly and transparently. For instance, “workplace bullying” is defined as repeated inappropriate speech or conduct that is not necessary for work operations and causes harm to an employee’s mental or psychological well-being. 

Examples of inappropriate words or behaviors listed in the amended law include threats, neglect, isolation, or insults. 

Employers are required to implement preventive measures and establish a reporting mechanism for local authorities to receive and investigate complaints involving alleged bullying by top executives. Workers can report instances of bullying through employer-designated channels. 

These new amendments and related regulations do not apply retroactively to past cases, and businesses will be able to consult an online handbook to help them comply with the new standards. 

To determine whether a particular action is considered bullying, it is recommended to review the rules and instructions in the online  Workplace Bullying Prevention Guide. 

By Jen Chiapella 

Effective June 1, 2026,  Ministry of Employment and Labor Decree No. 470 of 2026 amends the Enforcement Ordinance of the Occupational Safety and Health Act to strengthen risk management and prevent serious accidents. The Decree replaces the previous record-focused approach with a structured risk assessment process. Key employer responsibilities include: 

• Identification of all foreseeable hazardous and harmful factors, determination of the level of risk, and implementation of corrective measures to reduce risks to acceptable levels; 
• Annual reassessments of risks beginning the year after the initial risk assessment. 
• Ad hoc assessments whenever new hazards arise or after a serious accident or an industrial accident occurs; 
• Worker involvement is ensured through inspections, surveys, interviews, or other meaningful participation methods; 
• Sharing of key information with workers, including assessment schedules, identified hazards, risk evaluation results, and corrective actions to be implemented, e.g., pre-work safety meetings, training, hazard postings; 
• Recording and retention of risk assessment results, worker participation records, and improvement measures for three years. 

The Decree also expands industrial accident causation investigations to cover major accidents and qualifying incidents involving fire, explosion, collapse, falls, suffocation, poisoning, chemical release, and heat-related work accidents. The Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency (KOSHA) or designated experts may conduct these investigations and prepare reports covering the facts, causes, and preventive recommendations. These investigation reports must be disclosed on the Ministry’s website unless disclosure is restricted by ongoing investigations or legal proceedings. 

Interestingly, recent amendments to the  Enforcement Ordinance of the High-Pressure Gas Safety Control Act and  Enforcement Decree of the High-Pressure Gas Safety Control Act, which come into effect on July 1, 2027, relax the risk classification for extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography equipment used in semiconductor manufacturing and liquefied CO₂ cleaning equipment (large data centers) from “high-pressure gas manufacturing facilities” to “specific equipment,” giving lead-way to this rapidly expanding industry. 

Employers may wish to assess their existing risk management programs and adjust their procedures where needed to comply with the new requirements. 

By Frank Skiba 

On June 11, 2026, the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) announced a new version of its Corporate Net Zero Standard. This is the main standard, used by thousands of companies each year, to set science-based emission reduction targets that will limit global temperature change to 1.5°C, consistent with the Paris Climate Agreement.  This is the first revision in five years. 

The revised standard – Version 2.0 – includes several changes compared to the previous version. Noteworthy changes include:  

• More accommodations for small and medium-sized companies and companies located in lower-income countries; 
• More reduction opportunities based on different context such as industry sectors, geographies, supply chains and capital stock; 
• Companies are expected to use their “best efforts” to reduce emissions using all available levers and address any implementation barriers transparently; 
• An implementation hierarchy that prioritizes direct actions to reduce emissions over broader activities such as sector-level programs; 
• Requirements for annual reporting and periodic progress assessments to identify gaps between targets and actual emissions and account for those gaps in future target cycles; 
• A voluntary recognition mechanism to encourage companies to address direct emissions in the short-term, as well as a longer-term requirement for larger companies to take progressive responsibility for these emissions. 

In terms of timeline, companies can submit targets for validation under Version 2.0 starting in Q1 of 2027. Companies setting targets now through the end of 2027 may continue to use the existing standard (Version 1.3.1).  Companies that already have 2030 targets should start to set targets for the next cycle (2030–2035) under Version 2.0 starting in 2028.  Looking ahead, SBTi plans to update its suite of existing sector standards for high emitting industries to align them with the new corporate standard.