- The underlying July 31 inventory counted 533 local moratorium instruments across 42 states, including 435 active or extended measures—not 500 permanent AI data-center bans. [1] - The dataset covers five infrastructure categories and separately records active, pending, expired, replaced and rescinded measures. [1][2] - Recent actions range from Seattle’s emergency and Prince George’s County’s two-year hyperscale moratorium to Hill County, Texas, rescinding its after a developer sued. [3][4][5] - Industry groups oppose blanket local moratoriums, while hyperscalers are emphasizing ratepayer, grid-flexibility and community-benefit commitments. [6][7]
A claim that U.S. “AI data-center bans” surged past 500 in July needs a narrower definition. The underlying research counted 533 local-government moratorium instruments across 42 states as of July 31, but that total includes several kinds of infrastructure, temporary s and measures that are no longer active. [1]
The inventory, compiled by researcher Michael Bommarito, recorded 435 instruments as active or extended, 35 as pending or proposed and 63 as expired, replaced or rescinded. It covers data centers, cryptocurrency-mining facilities, battery-energy storage, utility-scale solar and wind. The dataset does not present its 533-instrument headline as a count of AI-only bans. [1][2]
What the 533 figure counts #
The dataset uses “moratorium” in a specific legal sense: a city, county or township temporarily stops accepting or approving permit applications for a defined category of new development while officials study impacts or write permanent rules. Most run for six to 12 months, although some last longer or are extended. [2]
That distinction matters because a moratorium is not automatically a permanent ban. The inventory separately records measures that were replaced by permanent regulations, expired without replacement or were rescinded. It also counts each local instrument rather than each project. One countywide and several city or township actions therefore appear as separate entries. [1][2]
The July release says the 533 instruments were identified from roughly 4,600 original documents, including ordinances, resolutions and board minutes. Researchers swept all 50 states for actions adopted from May through July, but earlier counts remain lower bounds because the review was less systematic before that period. The project also warns that many small jurisdictions do not publish records online. [1][8]
The geography is broad. Michigan had 63 instruments, Ohio 53, Georgia 47 and North Carolina 40. The measures are concentrated in local governments confronting proposed large loads, land-use changes, water questions, noise and backup-generation concerns. [1]
The local measures are real, but their terms vary #
Prince George’s County, Maryland, illustrates what qualifies as a data-center moratorium. On July 7, the County Council adopted a two-year on accepting, processing, reviewing and approving subdivision and site-plan applications involving qualified data-center uses while it considers zoning, siting and construction rules. The county’s action specifically targets new hyperscale development; it is not a prohibition on every type of computing facility. [3]
Seattle approved an emergency moratorium on large new data centers on June 9 after the mayor’s office cited concerns about utility costs, community health, pollution, economic resilience and equity. The city’s earlier policy work directed departments to examine where projects might move if Seattle permanently restricted them and how they could fit into emergency-management and utility policies. [9]
Cleveland took a narrower approach. Its council adopted a three-month in July, shortening the proposed term so officials could write rules for evaluating projects by factors such as size and environmental impact. Other cities have rejected s, allowed them to expire or replaced them with permanent zoning standards. [1][10]
The legal and commercial consequences can be immediate. Hill County, Texas, repealed a one-year moratorium in June after developer RCM Hill sued for $100 million, alleging the restriction was unlawful. The county replaced the with a developer checklist and additional public-notice requirements. [4]
State policy is moving toward conditions as well as bans #
Local actions are part of a wider policy fight. The National Conference of State Legislatures said in a July 1 update that lawmakers in 15 states were considering data-center moratoriums or related restrictions. The proposals varied widely, from pausing permits for facilities above 20 or 100 megawatts to requiring impact studies or limiting local approvals. Several bills had already failed, been vetoed or remained only at the introduction stage. [11]
New York moved further on July 14, when Gov. Kathy Hochul issued an executive order creating a temporary statewide moratorium on new hyperscale data centers while regulators develop standards for energy, environmental and community impacts. The governor’s office said the will be lifted once the standards are finalized, subject to state and local requirements. [12] The emerging pattern is therefore more complicated than a nationwide rejection of AI infrastructure. Some jurisdictions are stopping applications outright. Others are setting thresholds, requiring developers to pay for dedicated grid infrastructure, examining water and noise impacts or negotiating community benefits. These approaches can delay projects without permanently excluding the companies that want to build them. [13]
Developers and utilities are adjusting their response #
The Data Center Coalition, an industry group representing developers and operators, has argued that local moratoriums can signal that a region is closed to data centers and other major economic projects. In a July statement, the group said the industry was committed to paying full energy costs and investing in local jobs and workforce development. [6]
Hyperscalers have also emphasized technical and financial measures intended to reduce grid pressure. Google said in March that it had signed 1 gigawatt of demand-response capacity into long-term utility agreements, allowing some machine-learning workloads to be shifted or curtailed. Microsoft’s public materials for its Wisconsin buildout describe a “community-first” approach focused on local jobs, investment and shared benefits. [7][14]
Those commitments do not settle local land-use disputes. A moratorium can still stop a project before a utility contract, zoning approval or construction permit is complete, while a lawsuit or a new ordinance can change the project’s legal path. The verified picture as of July 31 is a fast-growing, uneven patchwork of temporary s and permanent rules—not 500 identical AI bans. [1]
Companies mentioned #
Further sources #
[[1] Moratorium Nation July 31, 2026 release: 533 instruments, 435 active or extende… ↗](https://mjbommar.github.io/moratorium-data-2026/index.html)
[[2] Moratorium Nation FAQ defining a moratorium as a temporary local-government pau… ↗](https://mjbommar.github.io/moratorium-data-2026/docs/FAQ.html)
[3] Prince George’s County Council Resolution CR-066-2026 establishing a two-year m… ↗
[[4] Texas Tribune report on Hill County rescinding its moratorium after a $100 mill… ↗](https://www.texastribune.org/2026/06/05/texas-hill-county-moratorium-rescinded-data-centers/)
[[5] Moratorium Nation release identifying Seattle, Prince George’s County and Cleve… ↗](https://mjbommar.github.io/moratorium-data-2026/index.html)
[6] Data Center Coalition statement saying the industry opposes local moratoriums a… ↗+8 more
The stories that matter, in one email. Free — unsubscribe anytime.