Data center regulation, not an outright ban, is the tool most likely to give towns lasting leverage over the AI building boom, according to a new argument from Syracuse University. Austin Zwick, an associate teaching professor and urban planning specialist, makes the case in the Journal of the American Planning Association, and Syracuse’s summary of the paper appeared on Tech Xplore on 15 September 2026. His central claim is short enough to fit on a council agenda: outright bans invite state preemption, while targeted rules have proved durable.
The timing matters. Opposition to the large facilities being built for artificial intelligence has turned into a wave of local action. New York’s governor has paused hyperscale development for up to a year, Harford County in Maryland has banned the facilities outright, and a Texas county that passed a one-year ban rescinded it after 43 days when a developer sued for $100 million. Residents are no longer asking whether to push back. They are asking which tool will still be standing when the lawyers arrive.
This article unpacks Zwick’s Viewpoint, tests it against the legal history of the fracking boom he draws on, and compares it with the data center regulation choices local governments made in the summer of 2026. It closes with a checklist for local officials and a short guide for businesses whose AI and cloud workloads depend on where new capacity can be built. For the practical side of running that capacity, see our data center operations services.
Table of contents
- What the Syracuse Study Says About Data Center Regulation
- Why Fracking Is the Right Comparison for Data Center Regulation
- Fracking-Era Bans and the Case for Data Center Regulation
- Data Center Regulation Versus the 2026 Ban Wave
- What Targeted Data Center Regulation Looks Like in Practice
- Loudoun County’s Model for Data Center Regulation
- Four Moves That Make Data Center Regulation Stick
- Bans, Moratoriums or Data Center Regulation: How the Tools Compare
- Where the Leverage in Data Center Regulation Comes From
- Counterarguments to Data Center Regulation Worth Taking Seriously
- What Data Center Regulation Means for Businesses That Rely on AI
- A Data Center Regulation Checklist for Local Officials
- FAQ: Data Center Regulation, Bans and Community Leverage
- References
What the Syracuse Study Says About Data Center Regulation
Zwick’s paper is titled “Something Wired This Way Comes: What Fracking Taught Planners That Data Center Communities Need to Learn”, a nod to Ray Bradbury’s 1962 novel, which sits in its reference list. It was published online on 24 August 2026 as a Viewpoint, the journal’s format for evidence-informed argument rather than a statistical study. Tech Xplore’s headline calls it new research; the more precise description is a policy argument grounded in fieldwork.
Who wrote it and where it was published
Crossref lists a single author, Austin Zwick, with affiliations at Syracuse University’s College of Professional Studies and the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. His doctoral dissertation at the University of Toronto examined the local economic planning and governance implications of fracking in Northern Appalachia, and he has also written about the public finance challenges fracking created for local governments. The Viewpoint is an argument about data center regulation from someone who studied the last extraction boom at close range.
The core claim in one paragraph
The abstract makes four moves. AI data centers, it says, impose the same externalities on local communities that hydraulic fracturing did a decade ago. Planners should therefore treat them as heavy industrial uses. They should apply “the targeted regulatory tools that fracking communities developed through hard experience.” And they should be wary of prohibition, because “Outright bans invite state preemption; targeted regulation has proved durable.” The whole case for data center regulation over bans rests on that last sentence.
What the Viewpoint is, and is not
The paper draws on fieldwork with municipal planners across five Marcellus Shale states. It is not a census of data center ordinances, and it does not count how many bans have been overturned. Zwick also flags that “The analogy has limits, but the governance playbook transfers.” That caveat is worth keeping in view, because the strongest version of his case is about process and legal durability, not a claim that every data center behaves like a gas well.
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Title | Something Wired This Way Comes: What Fracking Taught Planners That Data Center Communities Need to Learn |
| Author | Austin Zwick, Syracuse University |
| Journal | Journal of the American Planning Association |
| Article type | Viewpoint |
| Published online | 24 August 2026 |
| DOI | 10.1080/01944363.2026.2710901 |
| Access | Open access, CC BY-NC-ND licence |
| Evidence base | Fieldwork with municipal planners in five Marcellus Shale states |
| Reference list | 42 works, from fracking ordinances to 2026 data center reporting |
| Public summary | Syracuse University via Tech Xplore, 15 September 2026 |
Why Fracking Is the Right Comparison for Data Center Regulation
The comparison can sound like a stretch. A gas well is a hole in the ground; a data center is a sealed building full of servers. Zwick’s point is that the two look alike from the town hall, which has to deal with trucks, water, noise and a budget, rather than from the engineer’s desk. The abstract lists five shared externalities, and each has a 2026 data point behind it.
Five externalities that repeat
The first is water. The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy reports that a mid-sized data center consumes as much water as a small town, and that larger facilities can require up to 5 million gallons a day, as much as a city of 50,000 people. Efficiency ratios can improve while total use still rises, as we explained in our look at water usage effectiveness. The second externality is continuous noise from cooling systems, fans and generators.
The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) reports that the compounding effect of thousands of servers can raise noise levels to 96 decibels, and that industrial diesel generators can reach 105 decibels. On-site power raises the stakes further, as our report on gas generators running without state air permits at a New Jersey campus showed. The third externality is construction road damage, familiar to any township that watched heavy trucks grind down rural roads during the shale boom.
The fourth is thin permanent employment. Good Jobs First notes that data center employment accounts for about 0.01% of all US jobs, while the industry consumes roughly 4.4% of the nation’s electricity. The fifth is the fiscal mismatch, and that is where Zwick sees the deepest parallel between the two booms.
The fiscal mismatch at the heart of both booms
In both booms, the abstract says, municipalities bear the infrastructure costs while states capture revenue through tax abatements. The pattern is visible in 2026. Good Jobs First found that 16 of 36 state data center subsidy programmes require no job creation at all, and New York’s governor has pledged to work with lawmakers to repeal sales tax exemptions rooted in a law passed in 2000. Local data center regulation cannot rewrite a state tax code, but it can make sure the costs a town carries are named before a permit is issued.
Pennsylvania offered a partial answer during the fracking era. Its Act 13, which took effect in 2012, created an impact fee on unconventional gas wells, with the money flowing to local governments to tackle the local effects of drilling and a list of specific permitted uses for the funds. Fiscal fixes of that kind usually come from state capitals, which is exactly why local governments need data center regulation of their own in the meantime.
Where the analogy breaks down
Zwick concedes that the analogy has limits, and three stand out. Data centers are permanent buildings rather than wells that are drilled and then largely left alone. They draw on regional electricity grids, so their costs to ratepayers can spread far beyond the host town. And they can generate very large local tax revenue: the Lincoln Institute reports that Loudoun County, Virginia, expected data center tax revenue to approach $900 million in fiscal year 2025, nearly as much as its entire operating budget.
| Local impact | Fracking boom | AI data center boom | Where data center regulation sits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Water | Large volumes for well stimulation, plus wastewater | Up to 5 million gallons a day at larger sites | Water and sewer rules, feasibility studies |
| Noise | Drilling and compressor stations | Constant cooling hum; generators up to 105 dB | Performance standards measured after occupancy |
| Roads | Heavy truck traffic during drilling | Heavy traffic during construction | Road use agreements and bonds |
| Jobs | Construction surge, thin permanent staff | About 100 to 150 jobs on one former 5,300-worker site | Enforceable job terms in agreements |
| Revenue | State fees, local costs | State tax exemptions; large local property tax in some counties | Benefits agreements and fee schedules |
| Legal risk of bans | State preemption in Texas, Colorado and Ohio | Preemption threats under Texas HB 2127 | Zoning and conditional use |
Fracking-Era Bans and the Case for Data Center Regulation
The legal history is the strongest part of Zwick’s case, because it has already been tested in court. During the shale boom, many municipalities tried to keep drilling out entirely. Outcomes depended heavily on state law, but a pattern emerged: where a town banned the activity outright, industry and state lawmakers pushed back hard, and several bans did not survive.
Denton, Texas: a 59% vote and a new state law
In 2014, voters in Denton approved a referendum prohibiting hydraulic fracturing within city limits, with 59% of the vote. Texas responded in 2015 with House Bill 40, which asserted “the exclusive jurisdiction of this state to regulate oil and gas operations in this state and the express preemption of local regulation of those operations”, while still allowing some “commercially reasonable” local rules. One city’s ban prompted the state to narrow every Texas city’s authority.
Longmont and Fort Collins, Colorado: bans that did not hold
In 2012, Longmont voters passed Ballot Measure 300, banning fracking in the city, and the Colorado Oil and Gas Association sued. In November 2013, voters in Boulder, Fort Collins and Loveland approved moratoria. In 2016, the Colorado Supreme Court held that Longmont’s ban and Fort Collins’s five-year moratorium were preempted by state law. It took Senate Bill 19-181 in 2019, which clarified local authority over the siting and surface impacts of oil and gas operations, for Colorado towns to regain real influence.
Pennsylvania: Act 13 and the Robinson Township ruling
Pennsylvania’s Act 13 went further than an impact fee. It also sought to make drilling a permitted use across zoning districts statewide, which would have stripped townships of the power to decide where wells could go. In December 2013, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down those zoning provisions in Robinson Township v. Commonwealth. The lesson municipal planners took was not that they could ban drilling, but that they could keep zoning it.
New York and Ohio: two different endings
New York is the exception that proves the point about state law. On 30 June 2014, the New York Court of Appeals upheld the zoning laws Dryden and Middlefield had used to ban fracking, ruling 5-2 that the state’s oil and gas law did not preempt local zoning. Ohio went the other way: in 2015, its Supreme Court held that Munroe Falls could not enforce its own drilling permit rules against a state-permitted well. Local rules that duplicate a state permit are vulnerable; rules about location and surface impacts tend to hold.
| Place | Local action | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Denton, Texas | Voter-approved fracking ban, 2014 | State preemption law, House Bill 40, 2015 |
| Longmont, Colorado | Ballot Measure 300 ban, 2012 | Preempted, Colorado Supreme Court, 2016 |
| Fort Collins, Colorado | Five-year moratorium, 2013 | Preempted, Colorado Supreme Court, 2016 |
| Dryden and Middlefield, New York | Zoning-based bans | Upheld 5-2, New York Court of Appeals, 2014 |
| Robinson Township and others, Pennsylvania | Challenge to Act 13 zoning mandate | Zoning provisions struck down, 2013 |
| Munroe Falls, Ohio | Local drilling permit rules | Preempted, Ohio Supreme Court, 2015 |
| Colorado, statewide | Senate Bill 19-181, 2019 | Local authority over siting, fines, fees and noise clarified |
Data Center Regulation Versus the 2026 Ban Wave
Summer 2026 produced a data center version of the same fight. The backlash is homegrown: as we noted when X blamed a Chinese bot farm for anti-data center posts, large local majorities oppose new facilities in poll after poll. Officials from Maine to Florida passed pauses and prohibitions under intense public pressure. Many said openly that they were buying time to write data center regulation. Others went further, and the early legal results look a lot like Denton.
Texas: the Hill County lesson
Texas is the clearest test. A 2023 law, House Bill 2127, limits the authority of cities and counties to pass ordinances that conflict with state law; critics call it the “Death Star” bill. In May 2026, Hill County commissioners passed a one-year construction ban, and developer RCM Hill LLC sued for $100 million over its stalled Project Aquila. According to CRE Daily, the county rescinded the ban after 43 days and replaced it with a disclosures checklist.
Neighbouring officials drew the obvious conclusion. When Hays County weighed a moratorium in February, Commissioner Walt Smith warned: “if we pass this as written, we’re gonna get sued, and we’re gonna lose.” The county tabled it and settled on a review board and a freeze on discretionary approvals through year-end. In Taylor, the council declined to act on a residents’ petition with more than 1,400 signatures, and the mayor pro tem said state law does not allow a city to change its zoning by popular vote.
Some cities went ahead anyway. In June, San Marcos voted 4-3 to make data centers ineligible for development within city limits, and Athens voted 3-2 in August to ban them. Others chose data center regulation instead: Lewisville banned the facilities from residential areas and now requires a special-use permit plus two public hearings, while Mesquite added technical, noise and water-impact studies. Texas has more than 335 operating facilities and 247 more proposed, according to Environmental Defense Fund figures cited by CRE Daily.
Maryland: one ban and thirteen moratoriums
In June, Harford County became the first Maryland county to ban data centers completely. County Executive Bob Cassilly argued the county lacked the electrical capacity to power hyperscale centers and called it “grossly irresponsible” to allow them. By August, 13 Maryland counties had enacted temporary moratoriums, and Montgomery County had extended its six-month pause to 18 months. The Maryland Tech Council warned that rushing to broad policies “risks foreclosing on a generational economic opportunity rather than regulating an industry on reasonable terms set by local governments.”
Maryland also shows how quickly the courts become part of the process. In Frederick County, residents collected more than 20,000 signatures to put an expanded data center zoning area to a referendum, but the Maryland Supreme Court ruled on 30 June that the question must stay off the ballot after data center companies challenged the petition.
Florida, Maine, New York and Pennsylvania
Escambia County, Florida, voted 4-1 on 6 August to ban large-scale data centers, using a 50-megawatt limit in line with the state definition, and residents immediately warned about smaller projects. In Maine, Governor Janet Mills vetoed what would have been a first-in-the-nation temporary statewide ban, leaving towns such as Brunswick, Scarborough and Eastport to act alone. New York went statewide: Governor Kathy Hochul ordered a pause of up to a year while agencies write standards, after towns such as Lysander had adopted their own six-month moratoriums.
Pennsylvania’s Upper Burrell Township shows the limits of a pause without data center regulation already in place. Its 180-day moratorium, adopted in May, did not cover permits the township had already granted to developer TECfusions, and supervisors approved a land development plan for one building on 5 August while the pause was in force. Residents have since filed a land use appeal. The planned campus covers 1,400 acres and could reach up to 3 gigawatts.
| Jurisdiction | Tool | What happened |
|---|---|---|
| Hill County, Texas | One-year construction ban | $100 million lawsuit; rescinded after 43 days |
| San Marcos, Texas | Zoning change, 4-3 vote | Data centers ineligible within city limits |
| Lewisville, Texas | Special-use permit, two hearings | Facilities barred from residential areas |
| Harford County, Maryland | Complete ban | First Maryland county to ban them |
| Montgomery County, Maryland | Moratorium | Six-month pause extended to 18 months |
| Escambia County, Florida | Ban on large-scale sites, 4-1 vote | Residents say smaller projects remain possible |
| Columbus, Ohio | Water, sewer and closure rules | Council chose data center regulation over a pause |
| Upper Burrell Township, Pennsylvania | 180-day moratorium | Existing permits and a development plan went ahead |
| Pierce Township, Ohio | Moratorium, extended twice | Runs through May 2027 while rules are drafted |
| New York State | Executive order | Pause of up to a year while standards are written |
Converted to months at 30.4 days per month, the pauses in this sample differ almost thirteenfold, from the 43 days Hill County’s ban actually lasted to Montgomery County’s 18 months.
What Targeted Data Center Regulation Looks Like in Practice
Zwick’s abstract asks planners to treat data centers as heavy industrial uses, which points straight at the ordinary land use tools that make up data center regulation. None of them is exotic. Pennsylvania’s Lehigh Valley offers a live catalogue: according to the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission’s count reported by The Morning Call, 27 of the region’s 62 municipalities have passed or are working on data center ordinances.
There is a legal reason Pennsylvania towns reach for rules rather than bans. The state’s Municipalities Planning Code, enacted in 1968, lets local governments zone but requires every lawful type of use to have a place. As The Morning Call puts it, Lehigh Valley communities “can’t totally stop data centers from being built, but they can put limits on where they can go.” That is data center regulation working inside the limits of state law, which is the posture Zwick recommends.
Data center regulation through zoning districts and conditional use
The most common move is to confine data centers to industrial districts and require case-by-case approval. One Lehigh Valley city allows them in only one of its three industrial districts and only by special exception, so every proposal gets a public hearing and a zoning board vote. Another township allows them by conditional use in its light industrial and mineral extraction districts, with a 50-foot height limit. Bethlehem is considering a similar single-district rule.
Setbacks and buffers in data center regulation
Distance rules are the most visible part of data center regulation. Ordinances in the Lehigh Valley range from 200-foot setbacks from residential areas to 1,000 feet from any residence, school, place of worship, life care facility or daycare. One township requires a 50-foot buffer of trees chosen to resist diesel exhaust, plus grass berms at least 10 feet high. In Texas, El Paso County requires a 300-foot buffer from residential neighbourhoods, and Kerrville keeps new facilities 500 feet from parks, schools and churches.
Noise standards that are measured, not promised
Noise is where targeted data center regulation earns its keep. EESI notes that data center noise spans multiple frequency ranges, particularly low frequencies, which makes it hard to measure with a standard decibel meter and hard to enforce under ordinary noise ordinances. One Lehigh Valley township answers that by requiring sound studies during approval, during the building permit process and again six months after the certificate of occupancy is issued, which turns a developer’s promise into a measured obligation.
Water, sewer and cooling standards in data center regulation
Columbus, Ohio, applied data center regulation to water first. Its proposed laws require data centers to provide estimated ranges of water use, an assessment of whether they could use reclaimed water instead of drinking water, and rules for connecting to sewer lines. In the Lehigh Valley, one ordinance requires closed-loop cooling, and another bars facilities from reducing water availability or pressure for homes, farms and businesses within a 2-mile radius, backed by an annual report on water, sewer, electricity and noise.
Decommissioning, bonds and benefits agreements
The final layer of data center regulation covers what happens if a project fails, and how a community shares in the upside. Columbus’s package includes a requirement for decommissioning plans if a site closes. Performance bonds and benefits agreements follow the same logic, locking in obligations while the town still holds leverage. New York’s executive order directs Empire State Development to craft a “community investment framework” to help municipalities negotiate benefit agreements, with options ranging from infrastructure improvements to childcare investment.
| Rule type | Example requirement | Where |
|---|---|---|
| Location | Special exception in one of three industrial districts | A Lehigh Valley city |
| Residential setback | 1,000 feet from homes, schools, places of worship and daycares | Lehigh Valley townships |
| Road setback | 300 feet from arterial roads | Kerrville, Texas |
| Buffer | 50-foot planted buffer and berms at least 10 feet high | A Lehigh Valley township |
| Noise | Sound studies at approval, permit and six months after occupancy | A Lehigh Valley township |
| Water | Water use estimates and a reclaimed-water assessment | Columbus, Ohio (proposed) |
| Cooling | Closed-loop cooling required | Lehigh Valley municipalities |
| Reporting | Annual report on water, sewer, electricity and noise | A Lehigh Valley township |
| Closure | Decommissioning plan required | Columbus, Ohio (proposed) |
| Utility capacity | Certification that the utility can serve the load | A Lehigh Valley township |
The distance rules in these ordinances vary fivefold, from 200-foot residential setbacks to 1,000-foot buffers around homes and schools.
Loudoun County's Model for Data Center Regulation
Syracuse’s summary singles out one place as a model: Loudoun County, Virginia, which ended automatic by-right approval for data centers in favour of public hearings and conditional permits. That choice matters because Loudoun is not hostile to the industry. It sits at the heart of Northern Virginia’s cluster, which the Lincoln Institute says hosts about 300 facilities, the densest concentration of data centers anywhere in the world.
From by-right to special exception
On 18 March 2025, Loudoun’s Board of Supervisors approved a comprehensive plan amendment designating data centers a conditional use, and a zoning ordinance amendment requiring special exception approval for data centers in its Industrial Park, General Industry and Mineral Resources-Heavy Industry districts. A grandfathering resolution let certain applications accepted before 12 February 2025 continue without that approval. The change converted an automatic yes into a decision the county could shape.
Why the biggest host still chose data center regulation
Loudoun had every fiscal reason to keep approvals automatic. The Lincoln Institute reports that the county has more than 27 million square feet of existing data center space and expected related tax revenue to approach $900 million in fiscal year 2025. It adds that the board has considered adjusting the tax rate so the county is not so reliant on a single source. Choosing conditional review from that position shows that data center regulation is not an anti-growth stance. It is a bargaining position.
What smaller counties can copy
Few rural counties have Loudoun’s staff or budget, but the core mechanism of Loudoun’s data center regulation transfers. Moving data centers from by-right to conditional use or special exception approval gives every project a public hearing and lets the approving body attach conditions. Brookings, summarising a 2026 symposium on rural data center development, framed the central question the same way: not simply whether data centers are “good” or “bad,” but “how benefits and risks get allocated.”
On one former AOL campus in Northern Virginia’s Data Center Alley, the planned data center workforce is under 3% of the site’s peak employment: 150 divided by 5,300 is 2.8%.
Four Moves That Make Data Center Regulation Stick
The Syracuse summary distils Zwick’s advice into four steps. They work best as a sequence rather than a menu, because each one protects the next. A town that writes data center regulation early has room to regulate rather than ban; a town that regulates can put its own costs first; and a town that has named its costs can protect the neighbourhoods most likely to carry them.
1. Pass zoning and disclosure rules before a proposal arrives
Timing is the whole game in data center regulation. Syracuse notes that construction spending on data centers has risen 331% since 2021 and that the facilities are geographically flexible, so communities near transmission lines, fiber corridors or water supplies should prepare even if no proposal is pending. Columbus councilmember Christopher Wyche made the same point when explaining why his city chose rules over a pause: “We have the benefit of time.”
2. Regulate rather than ban
This is the legal core of data center regulation as Zwick describes it. A ban concentrates the whole dispute into one yes-or-no question that a developer can take to court or to the state legislature. A set of location, noise, water and closure rules is harder to attack, because each rule is tied to a specific local harm the town has clear authority to manage.
3. Put the costs local government can least afford first
The summary names road damage, water supply and electricity rates. These are the costs that land on local budgets and household bills rather than on a state balance sheet. Road use agreements, water feasibility studies and utility certification requirements, such as the Lehigh Valley rule that applicants show the electric utility can serve their load, convert those worries into conditions of approval.
4. Build in equity protections from the start
Zwick argues that disadvantaged communities have historically absorbed the worst of the coal and fracking booms, and now risk the same with data centers. Equity protections belong in the first draft of data center regulation, not the last amendment. In practice that can mean setbacks measured from homes, noise limits enforced at night, and benefits agreements that name who receives the money.
Bans, Moratoriums or Data Center Regulation: How the Tools Compare
Local officials rarely choose just one tool. Most combine a pause, a package of data center regulation and, occasionally, a prohibition on one size or type of facility. The comparison below sets out what each option does, where its legal exposure lies and what leverage it gives a community once a developer is at the table. The exposure ratings are our assessment, based on the cases in this article.
| Tool | What it does | Legal exposure | Leverage created |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outright ban | Prohibits data centers everywhere | High where state law preempts or requires every use to have a place | None once struck down |
| Size-capped ban | Prohibits facilities above a threshold | Moderate; invites projects just under the line | Limited to the threshold |
| Moratorium | Pauses applications for a set period | Moderate; higher if open-ended | Time to write rules, if the time is used |
| Conditional use | Requires a hearing and approval case by case | Low; a standard land use power | High; conditions attach to each approval |
| Performance standards | Limits on noise, water, light and reporting | Low to moderate; must track local impacts | Ongoing, through monitoring |
| Benefits agreement | Negotiated payments or investments | Low; contractual | High while the town controls approval |
When a moratorium is the right first step
A moratorium is a tool for writing data center regulation, not a substitute for it. The AI Now Institute’s North Star toolkit, which openly aims to stop or restrict development, still recommends that moratoriums last at least 180 days and carry clear requirements for lifting them, such as new or updated protections. Pierce Township, Ohio, is doing exactly that, extending its pause through May 2027 so its zoning commission can finish drafting rules.
When a ban may still make sense
Bans are not always doomed. New York’s courts upheld zoning bans on fracking, and a prohibition limited to a clearly defined category, such as Nashville’s bar on data centers larger than 100 megawatts inside a broader tiered framework, is easier to defend than a blanket one. Harford County’s ban rests on a practical claim about electrical capacity. What Zwick’s argument suggests is that a ban should be the product of a record, not a substitute for one.
Where the Leverage in Data Center Regulation Comes From
The headline promises leverage, so it is worth being precise about where it comes from. A town does not gain bargaining power simply by passing data center regulation. It gains power when a developer needs something the town can grant with conditions, and when the town knows enough to set those conditions well.
Discretion is leverage
By-right approval gives a town nothing to trade. Conditional approval gives it a hearing, a record and the right to attach conditions. That is why Loudoun’s switch matters, and why Lewisville’s two public hearings and Nashville’s tiered process matter more than their headlines suggest. Data center regulation built on discretion keeps the town at the table for every project.
Information is leverage
Many residents first hear of a proposal from the press. In Jay, Maine, town officials learned of a planned data center only after the Bangor Daily News reported it. Brookings notes that financial incentives, compressed timelines and confidential negotiations make it harder for local leaders to protect community interests. Disclosure rules, a core part of data center regulation, reverse that. As Maine activist Dana Colihan put it: “When residents don’t get opportunities to participate, data centers can really steamroll their way into communities.”
Timing is leverage
Leverage also depends on how much a developer has already spent. The company behind Lysander’s proposed 300-megawatt data center had spent nearly $1 million on grid connection studies before the town paused applications. Fort Worth approved the Black Mountain deal right after floating its own 90-day moratorium, which CRE Daily read as a sign of how much leverage large projects still carry. The earlier data center regulation is on the books, the fewer sunk costs a developer can cite when asking for exceptions.
Counterarguments to Data Center Regulation Worth Taking Seriously
Zwick’s position sits between two camps, and both have serious objections. Anyone drafting local rules will hear all three arguments below, often at the same hearing.
“Regulation is just a slow yes”
Many residents see data center regulation as a way to approve projects later. At the Columbus hearing, one resident told council members that “Data centers need to be banned.” In Maryland, advocates in Harford and Prince George’s counties said moratoriums simply open the door to future development. In Escambia County, speaker Gloria Horning warned that a 50-megawatt limit invites the argument that “49.9 is OK.” These concerns are fair, and the honest answer is to write standards strict enough that some projects cannot meet them.
“Communities should just take the money”
The opposite objection comes from the industry and its supporters. Reason’s Christian Britschgi argues that data centers are major fiscal boons for localities because they use few public services, and President Trump has said communities that reject them will “end up being backwards and poor”, a line he has used before, as our coverage of the G20 data center plea noted. Loudoun’s revenue shows the upside is real. The Lincoln Institute’s AOL campus example shows why towns still want the terms in writing.
“States will override local rules anyway”
This is the most serious objection, and the 2026 record is mixed. Texas lawmakers reconvene in January and could pass statewide rules that override the current patchwork. Yet Britschgi also notes that governors are now tightening data center policy rather than loosening it, and New York acted statewide. Zwick’s fracking history suggests states intervene hardest after high-profile local bans. Data center regulation that looks reasonable gives legislators less reason to step in.
What Data Center Regulation Means for Businesses That Rely on AI
Most organisations will never sit on a planning board, but they will feel the results. Every AI service you call and every cloud workload you run lives in a building that somebody had to site, power and permit. When local approvals slow down or harden, new capacity in popular regions arrives later. Data center regulation is therefore a supply-chain issue for any business with serious AI or cloud commitments.
How data center regulation shapes capacity and timing risk
The pauses covered above generally apply to new applications, not to facilities already running: Frederick County’s order, for example, does not affect previously approved projects. The risk is to growth. A provider promising new regional capacity may be relying on a site that still needs a special exception, a water study or a grid connection. Treat that as you would any other dependency in your IT governance process: named, dated and reviewed.
Questions to ask cloud and colocation providers
Ask providers the same kind of questions you would ask about cybersecurity and resilience. Is the capacity you are selling us already built, or still planned? Which approvals remain outstanding? Is the site subject to a local moratorium or a pending ordinance? How is it powered and cooled, and what would a new water or noise rule do to its costs? Clear answers usually mean a site approved on stable terms.
| Question | Why it matters | Good sign |
|---|---|---|
| Is the capacity operating or planned? | Planned sites carry approval risk | Operating, or approvals already granted |
| Which local approvals remain? | Hearings and special exceptions take time | A dated approval schedule |
| Is the site under a pause or pending ordinance? | Pauses in this article run from weeks to 18 months | No pause, or rules already adopted |
| How is the site powered? | On-site generation draws noise and air scrutiny | Utility confirmation of supply |
| How is it cooled? | Water rules are tightening | Closed-loop or low-water cooling |
| Is there a benefits agreement? | Signals settled local terms | Published, enforceable commitments |
Why predictable rules help operators too
Clear data center regulation is not only a win for residents. Developers in Texas now face a patchwork of bans, pauses, permits and lawsuits, and CRE Daily expects more counties to follow Hill County’s pattern: pass a moratorium, face a lawsuit threat, and settle for a disclosure checklist. A published set of standards tells an operator exactly what it must do to build. For planning where your own workloads should run, see our cloud strategy services.
A Data Center Regulation Checklist for Local Officials
The data center regulation checklist below turns Zwick’s four moves and the 2026 ordinances into a working sequence. It is not legal advice. State law differs, and the fracking cases show that the same tool can be upheld in one state and struck down in the next, so local counsel should review any draft of data center regulation against the state’s planning and preemption rules before adoption.
Before any proposal arrives
- Define a data center by measurable features such as megawatts, floor area and water use; Escambia’s county attorney warned there is no clear state definition of an AI data center.
- Move data centers from by-right approval to conditional use or special exception.
- Map transmission lines, fiber routes and water supplies to identify likely sites.
- Adopt disclosure requirements for power, water, noise and generator use.
During review
- Require certification from the electric utility that the load can be served.
- Require water and sewer feasibility studies and, where practical, closed-loop cooling.
- Require sound studies that capture low-frequency noise.
- Negotiate road use agreements and performance bonds.
- Put any benefits agreement in writing, with named recipients.
After approval
- Repeat sound studies after occupancy, as some Lehigh Valley ordinances require.
- Collect annual reports on water, sewer, electricity and noise.
- Require a decommissioning plan and financial assurance.
- Set fines that scale with the size of the operator, as the Ohio Environmental Council proposed in Columbus.
FAQ: Data Center Regulation, Bans and Community Leverage
Can a town legally ban data centers?
It depends on state law. Some states give towns broad zoning powers, and New York’s highest court upheld local fracking bans in 2014. Others, such as Texas, restrict local ordinances that conflict with state law. Hill County’s data center ban lasted 43 days before it was rescinded in the face of a $100 million lawsuit.
Is a moratorium the same as a ban?
No. A moratorium pauses applications for a set period, usually so a community can write data center regulation. The AI Now Institute recommends at least 180 days with clear conditions for lifting. A ban prohibits the use outright, either everywhere or above a size threshold.
What is by-right approval?
By-right approval means a project that meets the zoning code must be approved without a discretionary hearing. Loudoun County moved data centers from by-right to special exception approval in March 2025, so each new project now needs a hearing and a vote.
What did fracking teach planners about data center regulation?
According to Zwick, outright bans invited state preemption, while targeted tools such as zoning, setbacks and performance standards proved durable. Pennsylvania’s 2013 Robinson Township ruling, for example, protected municipalities’ power to zone drilling even as Denton’s outright ban triggered a statewide preemption law.
Does data center regulation stop projects?
Sometimes. Strict setbacks, water limits and utility certification requirements can make a site unworkable. The difference is that the town can explain why, on a record that is much harder to overturn than a blanket prohibition.
References
Regulating, not banning, may give communities more leverage over AI data center development
Phase 1: Project Plan for Data Center Standards and Locations
Data Drain: The Land and Water Impacts of the AI Boom
Communities Are Raising Noise Pollution Concerns About Data Centers
Will Data Center Job Creation Live Up to Hype?
The Local Implications of Data Centers for Rural Communities in the US
Bans and Moratoriums: North Star Data Center Policy Toolkit
Austin-Area Residents Are Pushing for Data Center Bans
Texas Data Center Moratoriums Spread as Backlash Grows
Counties React to Data Centers With Moratoriums, a Ban
Escambia Passes Ordinance Banning Large Scale Data Centers
Columbus City Council Pursues Data Center Rules Despite Ban Demands
Which Lehigh Valley Communities Have Data Center Ordinances?
Even Small Maine Towns Are Weighing Data Center Bans
Upper Burrell Residents Question Data Center Transparency
300MW Data Center Proposed for Pierce Township Despite Moratorium
Lysander Town Board Approves 6-Month Moratorium on Data Centers
New York to Impose Nation’s First Statewide Data Center Moratorium
Federalism Will Save the Data Centers
Robinson Township v. Commonwealth (Pa. 2013)
City of Longmont v. Colorado Oil and Gas Association (Colo. 2016)