Data Center Moratoriums

The first week of September 2026 marks a potential turning point at the state level: for the first time, state legislatures and governors are moving toward the restriction posture that has so far been driven almost entirely by local governments. California's Legislature closed its 2026 session by passing a slate of data center bills now awaiting the Governor's signature — SB 1168 (McNerney), approved 38-0 in the Senate after a unanimous Assembly vote, directing the CPUC to ensure data centers pay their fair share of transmission and distribution costs; SB 886 (Padilla), creating a separate electricity rate class for data centers; and SB 887, requiring environmental impact review. New Hampshire's Governor Kelly Ayotte, who had signed pro-development off-grid power legislation earlier in the year, reversed course sharply on September 2, saying she opposes 'putting any data center in the state of New Hampshire' and will propose a likely multi-year statewide moratorium in her upcoming budget — which would make New Hampshire the second state after New York to pursue a statewide pause. New Jersey completed the second element of Governor Sherrill's four-part plan on August 27, signing S3379/A4096 to require semi-annual water and energy usage reporting to the Board of Public Utilities, and North Dakota's interim committee work signaled that transparency fights (this week over nondisclosure agreements) will shape 2027 sessions. The local wave continued without pause across at least a dozen states. Kentucky's restriction footprint expanded with Rowan County's two-year moratorium on large-scale facilities and Winchester's unanimous one-year pause; Ohio added Miamisburg (nine months, 6-0) and Newton Falls (twelve months, 4-0); Georgia added Forest Park's 90-day pause and Dougherty County's unanimous 180-day extension, while Bulloch County narrowly rejected a permanent ban 4-3 but kept its moratorium through year-end. Mendocino County became the latest California county to adopt an urgency ban, Escondido passed a 45-day AI data center moratorium, and Fresno — a city of half a million — voted 7-0 to begin drafting a 10-year citywide prohibition backed by its mayor. Mead, Colorado (12 months) and Harpersville, Alabama (six months) adopted proactive pauses with no projects even proposed, a now-common pattern of jurisdictions regulating ahead of developer interest. The counter-currents remain visible. Several jurisdictions chose regulation over prohibition: Wixom, Michigan ended its moratorium early in favor of strict zoning (1,500-foot setbacks, a well-water ban, mandatory sound studies) while facing a federal lawsuit from a data center developer; Fort Payne, Alabama and West Hempfield Township, Pennsylvania enacted conditional-use and dimensional ordinances; and Indiantown, Florida rejected a hyperscale application pause 4-1 in a meeting that ended with the village manager fired. Development at scale continues where jurisdictions welcome it — Laramie County, Wyoming approved zoning for Vantage's $20 billion, 1,835-acre 'Project Latigo' campus south of Cheyenne on September 1 — and litigation is emerging as the next front, with a tentative California court ruling supporting the City of Imperial's challenge to a county data center approval. Trends to watch: whether California's Governor signs the SB 1168/SB 886/SB 887 package, which would make California the largest state with data center rate-separation law; the details of Ayotte's proposed New Hampshire moratorium; New York Governor Hochul's pending decision on the Responsible Data Center Development Act; the outcome of Texas's ERCOT interconnection queue audit; and the September votes queued in North Port, Florida (September 8), Kokomo, Indiana (September 14), and Gage County, Nebraska's 18-month extension decision.