Ep. 032 - 300 Datacenter Bans, 3 Projects Delayed: Moratoriums Explained (Datacenter, Energy) | Maya Barkin, Reyk Knühtsen, Jordan Nanos

Summary

Jordan Nanos, Maya Barkin, and Jeremie Eliahou Ontiveros explain that data center moratoriums are usually temporary local pauses on new approvals, not broad shutdowns of existing sites. Maya says the team tracked 400+ local instruments across 17 states and then screened them against a roughly 3,500-entry US project pipeline; despite 77 campuses above 20 MW inside restricted jurisdictions, only three projects remained plausibly delayed after accounting for permits, timing, scope, and carve-outs. The discussion emphasizes that moratoriums are often political signaling and a low-cost response to local opposition, especially over power and water. They also cover workarounds like de-annexation, the first statewide New York moratorium, Pennsylvania’s conditional permitting regime, Oregon’s land-specific pause, and how regulatory pressure may push developers toward behind-the-meter or fully islanded power setups.

Notes

• The episode frames moratoriums as a regulatory filter, not a blanket ban on the sector.
• A moratorium is a temporary legal pause, usually local, that stops new approvals, permitting, and construction.
• Existing data centers are generally unaffected; the pause targets new applications.
• Most US moratoriums are local, spanning county, city, and township levels.
• Recent state-level actions have mostly used executive orders rather than legislation.
• Governments use moratoriums because old zoning codes were written before 100 MW-plus and multi-gigawatt campuses.
• Moratoriums also serve as cheap political response to local opposition.
• More than 300 local governments have voted to pause data centers.
• The surge peaked in May and June, with July still elevated.
• Many six-month moratoriums are now expiring, so the trend is still evolving.
• The database tracks 400+ local instruments, actions, and proposals across 17 states.
• The screening matched moratoriums against roughly 3,500 project entries in the US pipeline.
• In the first pass, 77 campuses above 20 MW sat inside restricted jurisdictions, totaling about 20 GW.
• After a second pass, 74 of 77 campuses dropped out, leaving only three.
• Only 7.6% of the restricted-boundary set remained potentially affected.
• The three projects left standing were AWS near Commercial Point, Ohio; NorthPoint in Pennsylvania; and a Foresight expansion in Colorado.
• Roughly 80% of live restrictions have no capacity attached, making them preemptive.
• Jeremie argues many allegedly delayed projects are too speculative to matter for aggregate forecasts.
• Behind-the-meter power becomes more attractive because it removes grid price risk.
• Grid-connected sites are increasingly scarce and risky, while behind-the-meter sites are more about equipment and setup.
• County moratoriums usually apply only to unincorporated territory.
• The moratorium must overlap the project timeline; a short pause can expire before a 2028+ build date.
• The rule must also cover the relevant use and the developer must still need the affected approval.
• Developers can work around some moratoriums by redesigning the campus or power arrangement.
• SpaceX’s Brownsville parcel is an example of de-annexation to escape city jurisdiction.
• The de-annexed SpaceX parcel is described as 444 acres near Starbase and back under Cameron County jurisdiction.
• City and county jurisdiction are distinct, and that distinction can determine whether a project is covered.
• State moratoriums have to be analyzed individually because many are political signaling ahead of elections.
• The top four states by local instruments are Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia.
• Those four states account for roughly half of all local instruments in the US.
• Michigan alone had 45 enacted local moratoriums, mostly adopted in late 2024 and 2025.
• Michigan’s tax exemption appears to have triggered the wave of local actions.
• Maya says Michigan has no pipeline exposure and the largest projects keep moving.
• Public opposition appears to be driven more by power and water than by AI.
• Anti-data-center sentiment cuts across party lines.
• Jordan characterizes the dynamic as clear political signaling.
• Executive actions bypass legislatures and are easier for governors to revoke.
• Typical moratoriums last six months to a year, with some stretching to 18 months.
• Existing permits often exempt projects that are already breaking ground or under construction.
• New York’s statewide rule is the first in the US.
• It pauses state environmental permits for new 50 MW+ data centers until July 2027.
• New York’s rule touches about 1.4 GW of planned capacity, all of it 2028 or later.
• The estimated delay from New York is about 800 MW for 6 to 10 months.
• Stream Data Centers is the only New York project with a pending application at enactment.
• Pennsylvania’s order is a conditional permitting regime, not a blanket pause.
• It requires local approval, removes fast-track treatment, and bans NDAs for data centers.
• Oregon’s action pauses state-owned-land projects for one year and does not affect the forecast pipeline.
• NDAs with local governments often keep citizens from learning about projects until very late.
• Those NDA-driven revelations often lead to lawsuits.
• Jordan says the public often overstates AI or utility impacts from data centers.
• Meeting attendees are often uniformly opposed, not just asking for mitigation.
• Jordan uses BANANA as shorthand for total opposition to new nearby development.
• Developers still try to win support with large community benefit packages.
• But the underlying concerns are environmental and noise-related.
• Developers facing opposition often relocate, redesign, litigate, or reshape the project.
• Land with existing approvals and entitlements is better than greenfield land requiring rezoning.
• Jordan suggests developers may run many prospective projects in parallel and let the market sort winners from losers.
• In Texas, behind-the-meter developers with secured power benefit most from the ERCOT audit scope.
• Fully islanded campuses fall outside the scope of the Texas audit described here.
• Jordan says BTM may win because it avoids ERCOT queue uncertainty and shortens timelines.