What jurisdictions have actually done.
This page catalogs interventions that local and state governments have enacted, proposed, or considered in response to hyperscale data-center expansion through 2026: moratoria, density caps, noise ordinances, water-disclosure mandates, decommissioning bonds, interconnection studies, and tax-clawback provisions. The catalog is record-keeping of what was tried, with primary-source links, not a recommendation that any one intervention is the right fit for any one place.
How to read the table
Each row is one intervention enacted, proposed, considered, or blocked by a jurisdiction with a documented hyperscale-data-center decision in scope. The columns are:
- Jurisdiction — city, county, or state where the intervention sits.
- Intervention type — one of the seven categorical chips used across this page: moratorium density-cap water-disclosure noise-ordinance decommissioning-bond interconnection-study tax-clawback.
- Year — the year the intervention was first proposed or enacted. Multi-year processes are marked with the proposal year and a status pill that reflects current state.
- Status — one of passed proposed rescinded blocked pending. “Blocked” is used when an attempt was actively stopped (e.g., by superior authority); “pending” is used when legislative-record verification of the current state is incomplete.
- Source — primary source link where available (statute text, council ordinance PDF, news coverage of an on-the-record vote). Where the primary-source URL is known to be unstable, an HT-mirrored copy is noted; this is not yet uniformly implemented across rows.
Jump to an intervention type
Moratoria
A moratorium is a time-bounded pause on new data-center approvals, typically to allow study, ordinance drafting, or grid-impact assessment. Below: documented moratorium activity in scope of HeardTogether’s data-center survey.
| Jurisdiction | Intervention | Year | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maine (state) | moratorium | 2026 | blocked | LD 307, 132nd Maine Legislature (Rep. Melanie Sachs, D-Freeport) — an 18-month moratorium on permits and construction of data centers consuming more than 20 MW, paired with creation of a Maine Data Center Coordination Council. The bill passed the Senate 21–13 (Apr 14, 2026) and the House 82–62 (Apr 9, 2026); Gov. Janet Mills vetoed it Apr 24, 2026; the House override attempt failed 72–65 on Apr 29, 2026 (below the two-thirds threshold). Mills supported the moratorium concept but objected to the absence of an exemption for a planned $550M redevelopment at the former Androscoggin Mill in Jay. Primary source: Governor’s veto announcement. Secondary: Maine Morning Star, Apr 9 2026; Maine Public, Apr 29 2026. Context (national tracker): brockovichdatacenter.com. Verified 2026-06-12 against the Governor’s Office announcement and the Maine Legislature record. |
| Hood County, TX | moratorium | 2025–2026 | blocked | Six-month moratorium on new data-center / industrial development to allow study of water, energy, air-quality, and quality-of-life impacts. On Feb 10, 2026 the Hood County Commissioners Court voted 3–2 against the moratorium after the county attorney revealed a letter from State Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R-Houston, chair, Senate Committee on Local Government) to Texas AG Ken Paxton arguing counties “cannot claim any powers unless it is expressly conferred by the Constitution or statute,” and citing HB 2559 (Patterson/Bettencourt) as removing county authority over data-center moratoria. Commissioners later rejected a second moratorium attempt 3–2; residents called for resignations. Context: Texas Tribune, Feb 10 2026; CBS Texas (second-rejection coverage); legal-authority framing in the Texas Tribune Feb 13 2026 explainer. Sibling context on the Lavon — other TX towns page. Verified 2026-06-12 against the Texas Tribune Feb 10 2026 vote-day coverage; the Bettencourt-to-Paxton letter itself remains the next-step PIA target for the case-file follow-up queue. |
Density caps
A density cap limits how much aggregate hyperscale-data-center floor area, power load, or contiguous acreage can be approved in a defined geography (a county, a planning district, an overlay zone). Two anchored rows below; additional examples welcome at the address noted under the table.
| Jurisdiction | Intervention | Year | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knox County, TN | density-cap | current code | passed | Knox County Code Pt. II Appx. A Art. 5 (Zone Regulations) triggers conditional-use review when a single data center exceeds 10 MW capacity OR when any combination of data centers totals 10 MW or more within a single acre of land. Additional environmental thresholds: water use over 20,000 gal/day, undisclosed processing capacity, or refusal to provide electric demand information. Primary source: Knox County Code Pt. II Appx. A Zoning; legislative process via the Knox County Commission forum. Verified 2026-06-12 against the Knox County Municode index; exact MW-threshold pin-cite sits inside the Municode UI. |
| Fauquier County, VA | density-cap | 2023 | passed | Comprehensive Plan Data-Center Policy adopted by the Board of Supervisors Dec 14, 2023. Restricts data-center siting to two zoning districts only: the Planned Commercial Industrial District (PCID, located only in Vint Hill) and Business Park zones. Caps by-right development at 1.3 million sq ft in the Vint Hill PCID; remainder requires special-exception review. Primary analysis with policy cites: McGuireWoods client alert, Jan 2024; secondary: Piedmont Environmental Council, Fauquier update. Verified 2026-06-12 against the McGuireWoods client alert; the underlying Comprehensive Plan policy adoption date is Dec 14, 2023. |
If a reader knows of an additional jurisdiction-level density-cap ordinance with a primary-source citation, write to hello@honeycuttailabs.com with subject “Data center solutions submission” and include the primary-source link.
Water-disclosure mandates
Water-disclosure mandates require operators to report cooling-water consumption, source, and (where applicable) reuse architecture as a condition of approval or operation. Two anchored rows below; water-use context (cooling-tower consumption ranges, summarized in Lavon other-towns context) sits on the national-context page.
| Jurisdiction | Intervention | Year | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linn County, IA | water-disclosure | 2026 | passed | Unified Development Code Ch. 107 amendment PA26-0001 adopted by the Linn County Board of Supervisors Feb 18, 2026 (third and final consideration). Requires data-center developers to conduct a comprehensive water study at the zoning-application stage AND enter a water-use agreement with the county before construction. Iowa DNR is included in the water-use agreement to address well-interference issues; applicants must demonstrate sufficient water without “undue adverse impacts” on existing users. Companion provisions: 1,000-ft setback from residentially-zoned property; noise + light limits; waste-management plan; mandatory applicant-led public meeting before zoning-commission hearing. Scope: unincorporated Linn County. Primary source: Linn County PA26-0001 staff report; county announcement: Linn County, Board Approves Data Center Ordinance; secondary: Inside Climate News. Verified 2026-06-12 against the Linn County PA26-0001 staff report; adoption date Feb 18, 2026 on third consideration. |
| Aurora, CO | water-disclosure | 2023, 2026 | passed | City of Aurora has enforced its own data-center water restrictions since 2023, predating the failed Colorado SB 26-102 statewide effort. In 2026, Aurora City Council approved further data-center restrictions tied to the city’s water-conservation framework. Primary city action: CBS coverage of Aurora City Council restrictions; context: Rocky Mountain Voice, May 20 2026. Verified 2026-06-12 via the CBS coverage of Aurora City Council; the city-level restriction lane goes back to 2023. |
California AB 2469 / AB 2619 / SB 887 are proposed state-level analogues (not enacted as of June 2026); noted here for completeness.
Noise ordinances
Noise ordinances set property-line decibel limits, low-frequency-content limits, and/or setback distances calibrated for cooling-system and generator noise. Loudoun County, Virginia is the most-cited reference set in other jurisdictions’ hearings.
| Jurisdiction | Intervention | Year | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loudoun County, VA | noise-ordinance | 2026 | pending | Loudoun County’s CPAM/ZOAM “Data Center Standards & Locations,” Phase 2 is in progress; per county staff, the explicit goal is to “enhance guidance for evaluating data centers as conditional uses by considering impacts related to noise, light, energy consumption, water use, air quality, and compatibility with place type visions.” Phase 1 (adopted Mar 18, 2025) eliminated by-right data-center development and redesignated data centers as a Special Exception use in most districts; Phase 2 carries the use-specific standards. Anticipated full-Board adoption: December 2026; Planning Commission public comment scheduled Jul 2026. Substrate noise data: property-line sound studies have documented 65–90 dB(A) at hyperscale sites with significant low-frequency content; standard 6-foot solid walls provide minimal attenuation at low frequencies. Context summarized in Lavon other-towns context. Verified 2026-06-12 against the Loudoun County Phase-2 project page; Phase-1 amendments adopted Mar 18, 2025. Specific section-number citations in the adopted Phase-2 ordinance will land when the December 2026 adoption text is posted. |
| City of Lavon, TX | noise-ordinance | 2026 | proposed | In May 2026 correspondence, the Lavon City Manager committed staff to research a stronger noise ordinance at a resident’s request. Captured verbatim on the Lavon record — City’s stated position. Ordinance text is not yet drafted on the public record; this row tracks the commitment, not an enacted instrument. |
Decommissioning bonds
A decommissioning bond requires the operator to post financial security covering removal of equipment, site restoration, and hazardous-material disposal at the end of facility life. Two anchored rows below; the category surfaced first in resident comment at multiple Texas hearings (San Marcos, Lacy Lakeview), and Pennsylvania townships are the current cluster of adopted instruments.
| Jurisdiction | Intervention | Year | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| South Strabane Township, PA (Washington County) | decommissioning-bond | 2026 | passed | Data Center Ordinance + companion noise ordinance adopted by the South Strabane Township Board of Supervisors Jun 10, 2026 (passed alongside companion noise ordinance same meeting). Requires posting of a decommissioning surety equal to 125% of the estimated decommissioning cost; also includes insurance requirements and residential setbacks. Primary source: South Strabane adopted ordinance PDF; Feb 2026 draft for legislative-record continuity: draft PDF; secondary: Observer-Reporter, Jun 11 2026; CBS Pittsburgh. Verified 2026-06-12 against the South Strabane adopted-ordinance PDF; 125% surety threshold is explicit in the ordinance text. |
| York County Planning Commission, PA (model ordinance) | decommissioning-bond | 2025 | model | Model-ordinance text published Aug 2025 (not itself adopted, but adopted-by-reference / adapted in multiple PA townships). Decommissioning provision: financial security in the form of bond, irrevocable letter of credit, or other acceptable financial security required prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, set at 110% of estimated decommissioning cost minus salvageable value. Five-year review cycle for cost estimates. Primary source: York County Planning Commission, Data Center Model Ordinance. Verified 2026-06-12 against the York County Planning Commission model-ordinance page. “Model” status reflects published-but-not-locally-enacted; adopting townships would each be tracked as separate “passed” rows. |
Analogue: wind- and solar-farm decommissioning bonds are well-established practice and available as a longer-history comparator. The Pennsylvania examples above are the closest direct data-center-specific surety analogues currently on the public record.
Interconnection studies
An interconnection study requires the grid operator (in Texas, ERCOT; in other regions, the relevant ISO or utility) to assess load impact, transmission upgrades, and reliability effects before a hyperscale interconnection is approved. State-level interconnection policy is the wider context.
| Jurisdiction | Intervention | Year | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State of Texas (ERCOT) | interconnection-study | 2026 | pending | PUCT Project No. 58481 — “Rulemaking to Implement Large Load Interconnection”, implementing PURA §37.0561 (created by Texas SB 6 / 89th Legislature, 2025). Proposed rule 16 Tex. Admin. Code §25.194 applies to loads of 75 MW or greater and establishes interconnection-study requirements, a $50,000/MW interconnection fee plus additional study payments, per-MW financial security, contributions in aid of construction, site-control proof, and a backup-generation mandate. PUCT voted to publish the draft rule for public comment Mar 12, 2026; comments closed Apr 17, 2026; adoption anticipated later in 2026. After adoption, only Large Loads with executed interconnection agreements meeting Project 58481 requirements will be included in the ERCOT Large Load forecast. ERCOT’s 2026 peak-demand forecast projects 150 GW by 2030 driven primarily by AI data centers and crypto operations (context: Texas Tribune, Feb 13 2026). Verified 2026-06-12 against the PUCT Interchange docket index. Final rule text will land when PUCT issues adoption. |
Tax clawback
A tax-clawback provision requires repayment of granted tax abatements (such as Texas’ data-center-exemption program) if the operator fails to meet commitments on jobs, investment, or operational continuity. State data-center tax-exemption programs are the context within which clawback provisions are debated.
| Jurisdiction | Intervention | Year | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State of Texas (Comptroller) | tax-clawback | 2025–2026 | pending | Tex. Tax Code §§ 151.359 (standard qualifying data centers) and 151.3595 (large qualifying data-center projects) authorize the Texas Comptroller to revoke a data-center registration for noncompliance with the qualifying-jobs and capital-investment thresholds (20 jobs / $200M for standard; 40 jobs / $500M for large). On revocation, the operator becomes liable for back sales and use tax plus penalty and interest from the date of purchase on all exempt purchases (34 Tex. Admin. Code § 3.335; Comptroller program page). This is a narrow registration-revocation clawback, not a broad performance-based clawback for under-delivery on grid-impact or water-use commitments. The exemption itself — now ≈ $1B+/year revenue cost (Texas Tribune, Apr 8 2026) — is the subject of ongoing legislative debate over whether a broader clawback structure should be added. The expired Chapter 313 (school-property-tax limitation) and its successor Chapter 403 Subchapter T (JETI Act) expressly exclude large data centers from school-tax-limitation eligibility. Context surfaced on the Lavon claims & recourse page. Verified 2026-06-12 against the Texas Comptroller program page and 34 TAC § 3.335. “Pending” status here marks the legislative-debate lane on whether broader performance-based clawback is added, not a citation gap on the existing statute. |
Notes on the catalog
This page is non-exhaustive by design. The criteria for adding a row are the same as for any HeardTogether material: the intervention is real, a primary-source link exists (or the row is explicitly marked “verification pending”), and the intervention is relevant to the kind of decision a resident might be reading a case file about. If a row is missing, the gap is acknowledged rather than papered over.
Two structural risks the maintainer is watching:
- Source rot. State legislative URLs change frequently. Where a row is anchored to a stable primary source (statute citation, council PDF), no mitigation is needed. Where a row is anchored to a news item or to a brockovichdatacenter.com news entry, the citation will degrade as those pages turn over; mirroring locally where licensing permits is the standing discipline.
- Framing drift. Calling this page “Solutions in practice” rather than “Solutions” is deliberate. The page documents what jurisdictions have done, with primary sources, not what they should do. If a future revision begins recommending interventions, the page has drifted out of its contract.
How this page relates to the Lavon case file
The Lavon, TX case file documents one specific city decision in real time. The national-context page is the wider background around it. This page sits alongside the national-context page as a record of interventions that other jurisdictions have used. A Lavon resident reading the case file can use this page to see what other places have tried; a resident in a different jurisdiction reading the national-context page can use this page to see whether any of those interventions has a primary-source citation attached.
The framing decision throughout: HeardTogether takes no position on the right outcome for any specific data-center decision, and takes no position on which of these interventions is the right fit for any particular place. The point is that the catalog exists, with citations, where a reader can examine it.