Archive

Hagerstown officials have not yet set a vote on an annexation tied to a potential data center. The piece is about local land-use and community process, with the project still at the proposal stage.

Cuyahoga Falls adopted rules that will govern future data center proposals in the city. The filing says the local government is setting the terms for siting and regulation, but it does not say whether any specific project has been approved, what land or utility commitments a project would require, or any tax package tied to one.

Residents in a central Connecticut suburb are trying to stop data center development before any proposal advances. The piece is about local opposition and the chance of a moratorium or other zoning barrier, not a built project or a committed host site.

Richland Township approved temporary bans on new data center projects and battery energy storage developments. This is a local siting and zoning move that pauses new proposals while the township decides what it will allow.

Westlake approved the data center after a settlement ended a lawsuit brought by Keller neighbors. The piece is about local opposition and the legal path that cleared the project in Tarrant County.

Five counties across the PJM and MISO grids have written decommissioning-bond requirements into law in just eight months, each borrowing bond mechanics from existing solar and wind ordinances.

Five counties across the PJM and MISO grids have written decommissioning-bond requirements into law in just eight months, each borrowing bond mechanics from existing solar and wind ordinances.

The piece is about a state computing law and how it gives local governments room to restrict or reject data centers. It appears to focus on siting and regulatory authority in Jefferson County.

Residents in central Massachusetts are objecting to a proposed data center at a public meeting. The filing as presented does not say whether the project needs a zoning change, tax deal, water service, or power arrangement, only that local opposition is focused on the proposal itself.

Raritan is moving toward a local ban on data centers, which makes this a community and zoning story rather than a project approval. The filing does not describe a specific project site, power deal, water use, or tax package.

Grand County is paying for outside help before deciding whether to prohibit data centers. The piece is about local siting rules and the county’s regulatory process, not a specific project’s power, water, or tax commitments.

Ohio ballot measures on data centers have been rejected in a string of local votes. The piece is about community opposition and siting fights over where these projects can be built in the state.

Thirteen townships in Jackson County have moved to pause AI data center development. The piece is about local siting and zoning resistance, and it affects where projects could be approved rather than any specific power, water, or tax commitment.

The piece is about local opposition to a proposed data center project in Maryland and the role of an unexpected activist in helping push back on it. It centers on siting and community resistance, with the project still described as proposed rather than approved.

A Michigan township is considering rezoning a large tract of land, and the question is whether that change would make a data center possible. The filing, as presented here, does not say the project is approved, who the developer is, or what commitments it would require on power, water, or taxes.

The piece covers a county board meeting over a proposed data center and the local friction around that siting process. It appears to focus on land-use approval and community reaction, not on power, water, or tax terms that were actually adopted.

The piece is about Texas state policy on data center siting, specifically a promised continuation of a moratorium and more legislation. It affects where projects can be approved in Texas and what rules developers would have to follow, but the excerpt does not say which projects, counties, or specific provisions are involved.

Oregon voters approved a charter amendment that restricts data centers, which is a local land-use and regulatory action affecting where projects can be built. The excerpt does not say what limits the amendment imposes, whether any specific project is affected, or how it changes power, water, or tax commitments.

Central Ohio voters are weighing local limits on data center development, with the dispute centered on how large these projects can be and what conditions they face. The excerpt points to a community and zoning fight, with the water and cooling issue also in view, but it does not specify any particular project commitments or deal terms.

Voters in Pataskala and Granville backed a ban on large data centers. The filing does not say whether any specific project was planned there, so the main effect is on future siting and local land use in those communities.

Urbana voters appear to have backed a ban on data centers and a recall of the mayor in the same election. The piece is about local opposition to a proposed data center build and the community response around it.

Residents in Brazoria County are pushing back against a proposed data center, and the story centers on local opposition in a place where county officials have limited tools to block it. The filing does not say that the project has been approved or built, and it does not spell out the site's power, water, tax, or land terms.