Archive

The piece is about a local data center dispute centered on public opposition and the city’s handling of comment on the project. It says the city released critical emails, social media posts, and voicemails after a brief pause on public comment, but it does not describe the project’s power, water, tax, or land commitments.

The piece is about criticism of proposed Virginia rules for data centers and whether they would change how projects are reviewed and held accountable. It centers on regulation and community oversight, not on a specific build, power deal, water agreement, or tax package.

A developer is suing Upper Merion Township after the township rejected proposed data center projects in King of Prussia. The filing points to a land-use and local approval fight; it does not say the township committed power, water, tax terms, or other project support.

A public poll in Montana finds broad voter opposition to new data centers. The piece is about local political resistance, not a specific project’s power, water, tax, or land commitments.

The piece appears to connect rising data center demand in western Pennsylvania with continued fracking activity tied to that power and infrastructure buildout. It points to the local resource and land-use effects around new compute growth, while the excerpt does not spell out a specific project, utility deal, or permitting action.

The proposal is no longer just a geothermal project; it now also contemplates data centers at the Rangely site. The excerpt does not say whether the filing adds power commitments, water use, tax terms, land assembly, or approvals, so those details remain unstated.

Farmers in Ohio are pressing for protection of water resources as data-center demand grows. The piece is about local water concerns tied to proposed data-center development, not about the operators themselves.

The piece addresses a water-use claim around data centers in the Colorado River system. It says experts do not think data centers are the cause of the river cuts, which makes this a water-and-community story about blame and local impacts rather than a project filing or site-specific commitment.

The piece appears to concern Texas policy around who pays for data center growth, with the state pushing back on costs that could fall on ratepayers or taxpayers. It is about project support and public cost, not a specific site filing, and the excerpt does not say which project or projects are directly affected.

This is about New Mexico officials and advocates pushing back on the state’s data center buildout, with the excerpt pointing to water and cooling as the main issue. It appears to cover how the boom would affect local resources and what policy response is being proposed, but the excerpt does not say which projects are involved or what specific rules the plan would change.

An environmental group is seeking an injunction in a dispute with Spartanburg County over a proposed data center. The filing and the headline point to a local siting and community fight, but do not say how the county, land, power, water, or incentives would be committed if the project goes ahead.

Residents in Nutley are organizing a petition to block a proposed data center on Kingsland Street. The piece is about local community opposition to a specific siting proposal; it does not say whether the project has approvals, financing, utility deals, or a final decision.

South Huntingdon adopted local rules for data center development after residents raised objections to the facilities. The filing does not say whether any project is proposed there, what the rules cover in detail, or whether they change land use, power, water, or tax terms.

The piece is about a senator trying to remove some federal tax advantages for data centers. That fits the money beat because it concerns tax treatment of a project class, but the excerpt does not say which projects, where the policy would apply, or whether any site-specific deal is affected.

Philadelphia residents are asking city officials to pause data center activity instead of creating a task force. The piece is about local opposition and how residents want the city to handle proposed development.

Oracle’s Project Jupiter is described as sharing public environmental data, so the piece is about project-level environmental disclosure tied to a data center. The excerpt does not say where the site is, what utilities it will use, or whether any permit, water, or power commitment changed.

A local energy company says data center proposals could be coming to Garfield County. The piece appears to be about possible siting interest and the local power and water implications for the county, but the excerpt does not say whether any project has been filed or approved.

The piece says a Roanoke-area water authority thinks 2 million gallons a day is enough for the proposed Google data center campus. It is about water supply for a specific project and the local public utility that would serve it.

Opponents of the PAX-1 data center are asking a judge to halt development while related legal challenges proceed. The filing centers on a community and siting fight over whether the project should keep moving before those challenges are resolved.

The piece says river-area mayors are talking about conservation because data center demand is putting new pressure on water supplies. It appears to be about how local governments along the Mississippi River are responding to that water-use issue, not about a specific project approval or utility deal.

The piece says a Nevada governor’s order would require new tax and resource terms for data centers. It concerns what a project host may need to give up in money and resource commitments, but the excerpt does not say which projects are covered or what exact obligations were added.

Calexico has made its ban on data centers permanent, which is a siting and community decision for the city. The excerpt does not say whether any specific project was proposed there, what prompted the ban, or whether the city linked it to power, water, land-use, or tax terms.