Government AI use laws by state

AI Laws USA tracks 841 U.S. AI rules on government use of AI across federal, state, county, and city government. Each entry links to its official source.

Federal government use of AI rules (57)

In effect
TVA data center capacity commitment charge (2026)

Tennessee Valley Authority · Effective October 1, 2026 · Tenn. Valley Auth. Bd. of Dirs. — Data Center Capacity Commitment Charge (approved Aug. 20, 2026; eff. Oct. 1, 2026)

The Tennessee Valley Authority's Board of Directors approved a separate, higher wholesale rate for data centers on August 20, 2026, effective October 1. New or expanding data center loads above 5 megawatts now fall under a Capacity Commitment Charge attached to TVA's data center rate schedules, designed to recover the incremental capacity costs those customers impose on the system. The headline figures are substantial: upfront capacity commitment charges of roughly $1.5 million per megawatt, payable over three to five years, and an all-in average billing increase for data center customers of about 10%, phased in across three consecutive fiscal years. The stated purpose is to keep residential rates low while still serving growing data center demand. TVA matters here out of proportion to a single utility. It is a federal corporate agency supplying power across seven states, so this is not a state rate case but a regional cost-allocation decision reaching a large share of the Southeast — and TVA is among the first large US utilities to adopt a tariff aimed specifically at AI-driven load. Where most 2026 measures in this dataset restrict where data centers may be built, this one changes what they pay to run.

Full entry · News report
In effect
FAA Part 107 (drones)

United States · Effective August 29, 2016 · 14 C.F.R. Part 107

The core federal rulebook for commercial and recreational small drones (under 55 lb). Operators need a Remote Pilot Certificate, must keep the drone within visual line of sight, fly below 400 ft, avoid most airspace without authorization, and follow operations-over-people limits. Waivers and Beyond-Visual-Line-of-Sight (BVLOS) approvals exist for advanced operators.

Full entry · Agency page
Enacted (not yet in effect)
DOJ ADA Title II Web Rule

United States · Effective April 24, 2027 · 89 Fed. Reg. 31320 (Apr. 24, 2024)

DOJ final rule requiring state and local government web content and mobile apps (including AI-driven services) to meet WCAG 2.1 AA. Compliance dates extended to 2027/2028.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
OMB M-25-21

United States · Effective April 3, 2025 · OMB Memo M-25-21 (Apr. 3, 2025)

OMB Memorandum M-25-21 (Apr. 3, 2025) is the Trump-era replacement for M-24-10. It sets the binding rule for how federal agencies use AI — requiring CAIO designations, AI use inventories, and risk-management practices for rights/safety-impacting AI, with a pro-innovation framing.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
OMB M-25-22

United States · Effective April 3, 2025 · OMB Memo M-25-22 (Apr. 3, 2025)

OMB Memorandum M-25-22 (Apr. 3, 2025) governs federal AI procurement — superseding M-24-18 — and sets pro-competition, pro-innovation rules for how agencies buy AI systems.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
FAA Reauthorization Act 2024 (drones)

United States · Effective May 16, 2024 · Pub. L. No. 118-63

The five-year FAA reauthorization sets the agenda for U.S. drone integration through 2028: it directs the FAA to finalize a Beyond-Visual-Line-of-Sight rule, expands counter-drone authority for federal and (in pilot programs) state and local agencies, advances Advanced Air Mobility (passenger drones / eVTOLs), and tightens rules on drones produced by countries of concern.

Full entry · Bill text
In effect
VA Trustworthy AI Framework

United States · Effective September 22, 2023 · VA Directive 1003.2; VA AI Strategy (Sept. 2023)

The VA's Trustworthy AI Framework governs how AI may be used across VA healthcare, benefits, and operations. AI used in benefits or clinical decisions requires human review, bias testing, and an AI use-case inventory submitted to OMB.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Drone Remote ID Rule

United States · Effective September 16, 2023 · 14 C.F.R. Part 89; 86 Fed. Reg. 4390 (Jan. 15, 2021)

Most drones flying in U.S. airspace must broadcast a digital 'license plate' — Remote ID — that includes the drone's ID, location, altitude, and the control station's location, so law enforcement and the public can identify drones in the sky.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
DoD Directive 3000.09 (LAWS)

United States · Effective January 25, 2023 · DoDD 3000.09 (2023)

The Defense Department's policy on autonomous and semi-autonomous weapons. Updated in January 2023, it requires every autonomous or semi-autonomous weapon system to allow 'appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force,' undergo a multi-phase senior review before development and fielding, and comply with DoD AI ethical principles.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
NHTSA AV federal framework

United States · Effective June 29, 2021 · NHTSA Standing General Order 2021-01; 49 U.S.C. § 30166

NHTSA's Standing General Order requires automakers and operators of Level 2 driver-assistance and Level 3–5 automated driving systems to report crashes involving those systems. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards regulate vehicle design; NHTSA's voluntary safety guidance (AV 4.0) and the Automated Vehicle Comprehensive Plan provide non-binding policy direction.

Full entry · Agency page
Blocked / in litigation
Anthropic v. Dept. of War — D.C. Circuit upholds supply-chain-risk designation (2026)

United States · Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War (D.C. Cir. Sept. 25, 2026)

On September 25, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 that the Defense Department could label AI company Anthropic a 'supply chain risk,' letting the Pentagon remove Anthropic's Claude models from its systems and bar their use for Defense Department work. Judge Gregory Katsas, joined by Judge Neomi Rao, wrote that the department reasonably feared Anthropic might design Claude to refuse national-security tasks; Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented, arguing the 2018 supply-chain law was aimed at sabotage by foreign powers. The ruling is separate from, and points the other way from, a California federal court decision that found the Pentagon unlawfully retaliated against Anthropic. Anthropic said it disagrees and is considering further review.

Full entry · News report
In effect
EO: Inaugurating the Era of Super Intelligence (Sept 2026)

United States · Effective September 29, 2026 · Executive Order, Inaugurating the Era of Super Intelligence (Sept. 29, 2026)

President Trump signed an executive order on September 29, 2026 telling federal agencies to use the terms 'Super Intelligence' and 'SI' instead of 'Artificial Intelligence' and 'AI' in official correspondence, public communications, websites, reports and policy documents. It does not require changes to existing regulations, contracts, grants or historical documents. For now 'Super Intelligence' means the same technologies already covered by the federal statutory definition of artificial intelligence. Within 60 days, the President's science and technology adviser must propose legislation for a federal definition of 'Super Intelligence'. The order creates no new office, rules for companies, or obligations on the private sector.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Final Rule: Collection of Biometric Data From Aliens Upon En

United States · Effective December 26, 2025 · Final Rule: Collection of Biometric Data From Aliens Upon Entry to and Departure From the United States

This DHS/CBP final rule authorizes facial-biometric collection from all noncitizens on entry and exit at airports, seaports and land ports, removing prior exemptions and expanding to new travel modalities.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
EPA AI Strategic Plan

United States · Effective October 30, 2025 · EPA AI Strategy (Oct. 30, 2025)

EPA's AI Strategic Plan governs the use of AI for environmental enforcement, pollution monitoring, satellite imagery analysis, and permit review — establishing risk classifications and human-review requirements for AI in enforcement decisions.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Federal AI Executive Orders

United States · Effective January 23, 2025 · Exec. Order 14179 (Jan. 23, 2025); Exec. Order of Dec. 11, 2025

The current federal posture is deregulatory: EO 14179 (January 2025) revoked the prior AI safety order and directed agencies to remove AI rules seen as barriers to innovation, leading agencies like the EEOC and CFPB to pull AI guidance. A December 11, 2025 executive order directs the DOJ to challenge state AI laws and pushes for a uniform federal framework — but it does not itself preempt state laws, which remain in force absent congressional action or court rulings.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
DHS AI Critical Infra Framework

United States · Effective November 14, 2024 · DHS Framework (Nov. 14, 2024)

DHS released a voluntary framework that lays out the responsibilities of cloud providers, AI developers, AI deployers, critical-infrastructure owners, and civil society for the safe and secure use of AI in U.S. critical infrastructure sectors — including grid, water, financial services, and healthcare.

Full entry · Agency page
Repealed / replaced
OMB M-24-18 (superseded by M-25-22)

United States · Effective October 3, 2024 · OMB M-24-18 (Oct. 3, 2024)

OMB's original federal AI acquisition memo set rules for how agencies buy AI, including performance testing, vendor competition, and IP protections for federal AI use cases. Superseded by M-25-22 in April 2025 but established the federal baseline for AI procurement still in effect through M-25-22.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
USDA AI Strategy

United States · Effective September 30, 2024 · USDA AI Strategy (Sept. 30, 2024)

USDA's AI Strategy governs how the department deploys AI across food safety inspection, SNAP eligibility processing, agricultural research, and farm-loan adjudication — with use-case inventory disclosure required by OMB.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
GSA AI Procurement Guide

United States · Effective September 24, 2024 · GSA AI Guide for Government (2024)

GSA's AI procurement guide gives federal contracting officers a step-by-step playbook for buying AI — including risk classification, vendor due diligence, evaluation criteria, and contract clauses that comply with OMB M-25-22.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
NTIA Open Weights Report

United States · Effective July 30, 2024 · NTIA Open Weights Report (July 30, 2024)

NTIA's open-weights report concluded that the federal government should monitor — but not currently restrict — the public release of advanced AI model weights. It established the federal policy baseline that open AI models offer competitive and research benefits that outweigh current risks.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
SSA AI Disability Adjudication

United States · Effective July 30, 2024 · SSA AI Governance Framework (July 30, 2024)

Social Security Administration governance for AI used to help adjudicate disability claims — including the Insight tool and Quick Disability Determinations. Human adjudicators must review every AI-assisted determination; AI cannot deny benefits without ALJ or examiner review.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
DOE AI Energy Framework

United States · Effective April 29, 2024 · DOE AI for Energy Report (Apr. 29, 2024)

DOE's AI for Energy report sets federal expectations for how utilities, grid operators, and large compute customers use AI for grid operations, demand forecasting, and energy-resource planning — including data centers that strain regional grids.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
OPM AI Workforce Guidance

United States · Effective April 29, 2024 · OPM CHCO Memo (Apr. 29, 2024)

OPM AI competency model and skills-based hiring guidance for federal AI/data roles under EO 14110 and the AI in Government Act.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
NIST AISI / AISIC

United States · Effective February 8, 2024 · NIST AISI Charter (Feb. 8, 2024)

NIST stood up the U.S. AI Safety Institute and a consortium of AI developers, civil-society groups, and academic labs to develop technical guidance, test methodologies, and safety evaluations for advanced AI models — including red-teaming and dual-use foundation model evaluation.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
NSF NAIRR Pilot

United States · Effective January 24, 2024 · NSF NAIRR Pilot (Jan. 24, 2024)

NSF's NAIRR pilot is a two-year initiative providing U.S. academic researchers with shared access to compute, data, and AI models — establishing federal terms for responsible AI research, including bias evaluation, model documentation, and access guardrails.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
CISA AI Roadmap

United States · Effective November 14, 2023 · CISA AI Roadmap (Nov. 14, 2023)

CISA's AI Roadmap outlines how the U.S. cybersecurity agency will use AI to defend networks, secure AI systems against attacks, and protect critical infrastructure from AI-enabled threats — including deepfakes and AI-driven cyberattacks on the 16 critical-infrastructure sectors.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
NIST AI RMF (voluntary AI risk framework)

United States · Effective January 26, 2023 · NIST AI 100-1 (AI RMF 1.0); NIST AI 600-1

A voluntary federal framework that helps organizations identify, measure, and manage risks from AI systems — including bias, safety, and security issues. It creates no legal rights for individuals, but it has become the de facto standard referenced by regulators, several state AI laws, and federal contractors.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
TSA Facial Comparison Technology (CAT-2 / Traveler Verificat

United States · Effective January 1, 2023 · TSA Facial Comparison Technology (CAT-2 / Traveler Verification Service)

TSA uses CAT-2 camera units at 350+ airport checkpoints to compare a live photo of a traveler to their ID photo (or to a CBP TVS gallery), with signage stating participation is voluntary and travelers may decline.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
FY23 NDAA §7224B (civilian AI inventory)

United States · Effective December 23, 2022 · Pub. L. No. 117-263, §7224B (Dec. 23, 2022)

Section 7224B of the FY23 NDAA (Pub. L. 117-263, the James M. Inhofe NDAA for FY23) extended the federal AI use case inventory requirement from EO 13960 to non-CFO Act civilian agencies and required updated procurement guidance from GSA. Quiet but significant — broadened federal AI transparency baseline beyond defense and major civilian agencies.

Full entry · Statute
In effect
AI Training Act (2022)

United States · Effective October 17, 2022 · Pub. L. No. 117-207, 136 Stat. 2253 (Oct. 17, 2022)

Public Law 117-207, signed October 17, 2022, requires OMB to provide regular AI training to the federal acquisition workforce. A narrow but enacted federal AI statute — one of only three AI-specific bills passed by Congress before 2024 (alongside the AI in Government Act and National AI Initiative Act).

Full entry · Statute
27 more
Simplified Arrival Facial Biometric Comparison at All U.S. I · United States · In effect
FY22 NDAA §256 (DoD AI T&E) · United States · In effect
National AI Initiative Act (2020) · United States · In effect
FY21 NDAA §7224 (AI procurement pilot) · United States · In effect
AI in Government Act (2020) · United States · In effect
CBP Biometric Facial Comparison at Cruise Seaports · United States · In effect
FERC order directing PJM and other grid operators to reform · United States · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Chatrie v. United States (Fourth Amendment protection for lo · United States · Blocked / in litigation
Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act (KIDS Act) (H.R. 7757) · United States · Proposed / pending
2026-10779 · United States · In effect
2026-06952 · United States · In effect
Traveler Privacy Protection Act of 2025 (S.1691) · United States · Proposed / pending
Federal Facial Recognition & Biometric Technology Moratorium Act (2026) · United States · Proposed / pending
Sanders-Casar Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act (2026) · United States · Proposed / pending
US S. 5601 DoD reporting requirements for large AI contractors · United States · Proposed / pending
H.R. 10417 VA AI Transparency Act · United States · Proposed / pending
H.R. 10502 AI use under FISA 702 report · United States · Proposed / pending
H.R. 10670 China FIREWALL Act · United States · Proposed / pending
H.R. 10418 VA Claims AI Accountability Act · United States · Proposed / pending
US H.R. 9862 Responsible AI for Veterans Act (independent evaluation of VHA AI) · United States · Proposed / pending
OMB M-24-10 (rescinded) · United States · Repealed / replaced
EO 14110 (revoked) · United States · Repealed / replaced
EO 13960 (federal AI use) · United States · Repealed / replaced
EO 13859 (American AI Initiative) · United States · Repealed / replaced
Data center noise litigation wave and the dBA measurement gap (2026) · United States · Blocked / in litigation
Raeden v. Gibraltar MI data center moratorium challenge (2026) · United States · Blocked / in litigation
Federal facial recognition moratorium (died) · United States · Expired

State government use of AI rules (277)

In effect
Connecticut PA 26-14 ALPR limits and 21-day retention (2026)

Connecticut · Effective October 1, 2026 · Conn. Public Act 26-14 (2026), Sec. 13-15 (ALPR); Sec. 1 (civil action for deprivation of constitutional rights)

Connecticut's Public Act 26-14, signed May 4, 2026, puts the state's first detailed limits on automated license plate readers. From October 1, 2026, public agencies and their vendors may run plate readers only for listed purposes (for police: checking plates against hotlists and crime databases, or searching for a plate tied to a specific criminal investigation, warrant, missing person or stolen car, with a logged reason). Plate data must be deleted after 21 days unless held under a warrant or as evidence. Police may not use plate data to enforce immigration law, to investigate people who seek or provide abortion or gender-affirming care that is legal in Connecticut, or to target people for First Amendment activity, and may share data out of state only with New York, Rhode Island and Massachusetts agencies that sign a written promise to follow those rules. Vendor contracts must bar selling or freely sharing the data. The Attorney General can sue vendors (up to $2,500 per violation) and residents can sue agencies for injunctive relief. The same act also creates a state-law civil rights claim against federal or state officers who violate constitutional rights.

Full entry · Statute
In effect
Texas Abbott directive: TCEQ data center permit pause (2026)

Texas · Effective September 21, 2026 · Letter of Gov. Greg Abbott to TCEQ Executive Director Kelly Keel, Sept. 21, 2026 (data center permit pause)

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott ordered the state's environmental agency, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, to stop issuing permits sought by data centers. The September 21, 2026 letter says no state agency should move forward with data center approvals until the grid operator ERCOT, the Public Utility Commission and the Water Development Board finish gathering information in their data center audits. TCEQ must pause all data-center-related permits until ERCOT completes its review and report back to the governor by October 19, 2026. The letter also says Abbott will ask the Legislature to eliminate financial incentives for data centers.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Texas TWDB data center water reporting penalties (2026)

Texas · Effective September 14, 2026 · Tex. Governor's Directive to the Tex. Water Dev. Bd. (Sept. 14, 2026)

Governor Greg Abbott directed the Texas Water Development Board on September 14, 2026 to penalize data centers that do not report their water usage. The reason is a compliance failure rather than a policy gap: over the past three years, as few as 28% of data centers responded to the state's mandated water usage survey. A reporting requirement that three-quarters of its subjects ignore is not a reporting requirement, and this directive supplies the consequences that were missing. Non-compliance can carry criminal consequences and can make a data center ineligible for water permits, amendments or renewals under Chapter 11 of the Texas Water Code. Abbott instructed the Board to refer violations to the appropriate county or district attorney, and to notify the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality about potential permit disqualification. He also directed the Board to coordinate with the Public Utility Commission of Texas, the state's water utilities and ERCOT on the separate data center audit he ordered in August — which requires projects moving through ERCOT's interconnection queue to verify their water consumption, water sources and cooling technologies before proceeding, with non-compliant projects denied a grid connection. The Board must report back on enforcement by October 14, 2026.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Hualapai Tribe (AZ) hyperscale data center moratorium (2026)

Hualapai Tribe (AZ) · Effective September 14, 2026 · Hualapai Tribal Council resolution (approx. September 2026; prior opposition resolution approx. August 20, 2026)

The Hualapai Tribal Council in northern Arizona enacted a moratorium on hyperscale data center development within the Hualapai Reservation in September 2026, building on an opposition resolution passed approximately August 20, 2026. The Hualapai Nation controls nearly one million acres and shares a 108-mile border with the Colorado River. The Tribal Council stated that hyperscale data centers — which power AI and can consume hundreds of millions of gallons of water annually — pose 'a direct and severe threat to the tribe's sacred water, lands, environment and way of life.' The moratorium asserts that no outside entity or private developer may use, damage, or compromise tribal resources without the tribe's free, prior, and informed consent. Chairman Duane Clarke stated: 'Moving forward, we will always protect our air. We will always protect our land, and we will always protect our water.' The Colorado River Basin is facing critical water shortages, which the Tribal Council cited as a primary driver of the action.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Massachusetts EO 658 responsible data center development (2026)

Massachusetts · Effective September 8, 2026 · Mass. Exec. Order No. 658 (Sept. 8, 2026)

Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey signed Executive Order No. 658 on September 8, 2026, titled Establishing Requirements for Responsible Data Center Development and Operations in Massachusetts to Protect and Support Ratepayers, Communities, and the Environment. It is the most comprehensive single data center instrument in this dataset, because it combines four mechanisms that other states adopted separately. First, any data center with peak demand above 25 megawatts must meet 100% of its electricity demand with clean energy. Second, developers must obtain local approval before they can seek state construction permits — the same inversion Pennsylvania adopted three weeks earlier, and for the same reason: it stops a developer arriving at a town already holding state authorisations. Third, applicants must demonstrate conformance with state standards on air quality and public health, water use and community engagement, and must submit a community benefits agreement with key stakeholders. Fourth, and the part that gives the clean energy requirement teeth, a developer who does not procure enough incremental clean electricity to cover annual consumption must make an alternative compliance payment, and those funds are credited to a Ratepayer Protection Fund that offsets electricity supply costs for all ratepayers. Compliance with the clean energy requirement can be met by generating onsite, funding construction of nearby new generation, or paying into that fund. The Department of Environmental Protection must stand up the payment mechanism by the end of 2026.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Florida FDOT statewide ALPR permit revocation (2026)

Florida · Effective August 31, 2026 · Florida Department of Transportation — statewide revocation of ALPR right-of-way permits (issued August 31, 2026; 30-day removal deadline)

On August 31, 2026 the Florida Department of Transportation revoked every active permit for an automated license plate reader on a state highway right-of-way, and gave agencies thirty days — until roughly September 30, 2026 — to physically remove the hardware. This covers Flock Safety cameras and any other ALPR installed on state roads. The FDOT memo gives the reasons plainly: an exponential increase in deployments, together with concerning reports of misuse, data privacy concerns and surveillance schemes. The misuse is not hypothetical. In the Tampa Bay area at least two police officers, one in Haines City and one in Sarasota, were fired and arrested for allegedly using the cameras to stalk romantic interests. Governor Ron DeSantis had already called the technology and its misuse by police out of control and said legislative action was needed to protect Floridians' privacy. What makes this measure powerful is the mechanism rather than the rhetoric: Florida did not pass a law restricting how police may use license plate data. It used its property rights as the owner of the state highway right-of-way to revoke the permits that let the cameras be there at all. A city that wants to keep its ALPR program has to find somewhere other than a state road to put it. Gainesville turned all of its cameras off on September 3, 2026.

Full entry · News report
In effect
New Jersey S3379/A4096 data center transparency (2026)

New Jersey · Effective August 27, 2026 · P.L.2026, c.75 (N.J. S. 3379 / A. 4096, 2026)

New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill signed S3379/A4096 on August 27, 2026 (P.L.2026, c.75), requiring data centers in the state to report their energy and water use to the Board of Public Utilities twice a year. Reports cover total energy use (including for cooling), IT-equipment energy use, the serving utility and service agreements, on-site and backup power supplies and their permits, total and peak daily water use, and water sources. The Board must publish the reports online within 30 days. Data centers that receive state financial incentives must also report efficiency and sustainability metrics, which the Board keeps confidential except in anonymized, aggregated form. Reporting runs for three years from each data center's first report, after which the Board decides whether to make it permanent. The law took effect immediately. The Governor presented the signing as delivering all four pillars of her May 2026 data center plan: data centers paying their fair share for energy and the grid (July 2026 laws requiring them to bring their own clean energy and creating a separate rate class), transparency about energy and water use (this law), meaningful community investments, and good union jobs during construction. The same day she announced Department of Community Affairs guidance (sent to towns August 25) to help municipalities negotiate community benefits agreements with developers, backed by technical assistance teams at the Economic Development Authority, the Board of Public Utilities and the Department of Environmental Protection.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Delaware HB 233 large-load rate class (2026)

Delaware · Effective August 26, 2026 · Del. H.S. 1 for H.B. 233, 153rd Gen. Assemb., 85 Del. Laws c. 440 (2026)

Delaware House Bill 233 creates a separate utility rate class for large energy-use facilities such as data centers, and requires them to pay the full cost of the infrastructure upgrades they make necessary rather than spreading those costs across residential and small-business customers. This is the core cost-allocation move: once a hyperscale customer sits in its own rate class, the arithmetic that would otherwise socialise its grid costs no longer applies to it. Governor Matt Meyer signed it on August 26, 2026 as part of a four-bill Energy Consumer Protection package, alongside HB 445's clean-generation requirement, HB 310's removal of tax credits for these facilities, and SB 326's limits on what Delmarva Power can recover from ratepayers. All four took effect immediately. Delaware's approach is notable for treating the problem as four separate levers pulled at once — cost class, power supply, tax treatment and utility capital recovery — rather than a single omnibus statute.

Full entry · Bill text
In effect
Delaware HB 445 bring-your-own-generation mandate (2026)

Delaware · Effective August 26, 2026 · Del. H.B. 445, 153rd Gen. Assemb. (2026)

Delaware House Bill 445 requires large energy-use facilities to produce or secure 100 percent of the power they need, including a share of clean or renewable energy, so they do not strain the public grid. The Sierra Club called it a first-of-its-kind clean energy mandate for hyperscale data centers, and the distinguishing feature is that it does not merely charge large users more for grid power — it requires them to bring their own. That changes the question from who pays for new generation to who builds it. A facility cannot satisfy the requirement by accepting a higher tariff; it has to arrange supply. Combined with HB 233, which puts large users in their own rate class and makes them pay the full cost of infrastructure upgrades, Delaware has closed both the cost-shifting route and the capacity-strain route in the same package. Governor Matt Meyer signed it on August 26, 2026 with three companion bills, all effective immediately.

Full entry · Legal analysis
In effect
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe (NV) permanent data center moratorium (2026)

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe (NV) · Effective August 21, 2026 · Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribal Council resolution (August 21, 2026); reported KUNR Sep 2, 2026

The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribal Council passed a permanent moratorium on data center development on Pyramid Lake Paiute tribal homelands on August 21, 2026. Tribal Chairman Steven Wadsworth cited the tribe's decades-long fight for water sovereignty to protect endangered species — including the cui-ui sucker fish and the Lahontan cutthroat trout, found only in Pyramid Lake — and stated that tribal lands simply lack the water or power-grid infrastructure that large-scale data centers require. Autumn Harry, a Pyramid Lake Paiute tribal member and co-founder of the Water Over Data Alliance, has been an active advocate for educating indigenous communities about data centers as 'a form of land theft and water theft.' The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe's reservation spans approximately 475,000 acres in Washoe and Storey Counties, Nevada, centered on Pyramid Lake — a sacred site and one of the largest natural lakes in the Great Basin. The moratorium is permanent (not time-limited), placing it among the strongest tribal land-use restrictions enacted against data centers in 2026.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Pennsylvania EO 2026-05 data center restrictions (2026)

Pennsylvania · Effective August 18, 2026 · Pa. Exec. Order 2026-05 (Aug. 18, 2026)

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro signed Executive Order 2026-05 on August 18, 2026, sharply restricting data center development in the state. The order conditions state environmental permitting on two things a developer previously did not need. First, the Department of Environmental Protection may only review a permit application if the developer has made a legally binding commitment to meet the Governor's Responsible Infrastructure Development requirements — the GRID Requirements — which impose limits on electricity and water usage. Second, and more unusual, the developer must already have local approval before the state will look at the application. That inverts the normal sequence, in which a developer can arrive at a township holding state permits and considerable momentum; here the community goes first. The order also removes all AI data center proposals from Pennsylvania's Fast Track permitting process, and prohibits the use of nondisclosure agreements for data center projects — directly addressing the pattern where municipalities negotiate with developers under NDAs and residents learn the details only after decisions are made. The reversal is striking. Shapiro had been an early champion of data center development, including a $20 billion Amazon commitment to build at least two facilities in Bucks and Luzerne Counties. He said he had 'no other choice than but to take this executive action to protect the good people of Pennsylvania from these predatory developers.'

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Fort Peck Tribes (MT) — Data Center Discussion Ban

Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes · Effective August 10, 2026 · Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribal Executive Board Resolution (August 10, 2026), barring data center discussions on the Fort Peck Reservation

The Fort Peck Tribal Executive Board of the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes — located in northeast Montana — voted at its August 10, 2026 regular meeting to bar all future discussions and proposals for data center development on the Fort Peck Reservation. The resolution bans 'all future discussions and/or proposals pertaining to individuals or entities that would potentially develop data centers on the Fort Peck Reservation' due to 'the threat to our environment and members of our tribe with irreversible impacts.' Tribal Chairman Floyd Azure explained that the board had been approached by three different data center companies in the prior year, none of whom could explain to tribal leadership how the development would benefit the tribe. The Fort Peck Reservation encompasses about 2 million acres in the extreme northeastern corner of Montana, home to the Assiniboine and Sioux peoples. The ban mirrors actions by the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma (March 2026), Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (April 2026), and Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (May 2026) — all of which banned data center development on tribal lands.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Cherokee Nation hyperscale data center ban (2026)

Cherokee Nation (OK) · Effective August 10, 2026 · Cherokee Nation Data Center Task Force Report (Aug. 5, 2026); Principal Chief directive (approx. Aug. 10, 2026)

The Cherokee Nation — the largest federally recognized tribe in the United States, with more than 475,000 citizens — banned hyperscale data center development on tribally owned and trust lands in August 2026, following a Data Center Task Force Report released August 5, 2026. The task force surveyed 1,593 Cherokee Nation citizens and found approximately 64% opposed hyperscale construction within the reservation, with 14% in favor and 22% unsure. The task force defined hyperscale data centers as facilities often spanning more than 10,000 square feet and requiring more than 100 megawatts of power. The report cited concerns about energy use, water consumption, air quality, noise, light pollution, and cultural resource protection. For land within the Cherokee Nation Reservation that is not tribally owned or held in trust, the Nation announced it will not consider supporting a hyperscale data center project unless developers consult with the tribe early, address cultural and natural resource concerns, and include meaningful community input.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Nebraska LB 1261 behind-the-meter generation (2026)

Nebraska · Effective July 17, 2026 · Neb. L.B. 1261 (2026)

Nebraska Legislative Bill 1261 requires large energy users to generate their own electricity behind the meter, so that increased power demand is not paid for by Nebraska ratepayers. Governor Jim Pillen signed it in June 2026 and his office described it as landmark behind-the-meter legislation aimed at preserving the state's existing energy production. Nebraska is unusual in that its electricity is entirely publicly owned — it is the only all-public-power state in the country — which makes the cost-shifting question sharper than elsewhere: there are no shareholders to absorb a mismatch, so any unfunded load lands directly on other public power customers. LB 1261 sits alongside Governor Pillen's July 20, 2026 executive order suspending state tax incentives for large-scale data centers and creating a resource-protection task force, and the two together are Nebraska's answer to hyperscale demand: bring your own generation, and do not expect a subsidy.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
EBCI Ord. 158 (Data Center Moratorium)

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians · Effective May 7, 2026 · EBCI Ordinance No. 158, Cherokee Code ch. 47E (May 7, 2026)

Indefinite moratorium on data center development on the Qualla Boundary. Dinilawigi (Tribal Council) voted 11-0 to amend the Cherokee Code Chapter 47E, finding that high-impact digital infrastructure 'presents a clear and present danger to the lands and people' of the EBCI.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Sault Tribe (MI) AI Data Center Moratorium

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians · Effective April 7, 2026 · Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians Board Resolution (Apr. 7, 2026)

Sault Tribe Board of Directors voted unanimously to halt any AI data center development on tribal lands indefinitely, citing strain on local resources and uncertain economic benefit. Came after dozens of community members spoke at public comment.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Oregon SB 1516 — ALPR limits and vendor liability (2026)

Oregon · Effective March 31, 2026 · Or. Laws 2026, ch. 77 (SB 1516), §§ 3-9

Oregon's SB 1516, signed March 31, 2026 and effective at once, limits how police can use automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras. Police may use them only for listed purposes, such as finding vehicles linked to crimes, arrest warrants or missing people, uninsured or unregistered vehicles, parking or controlling secured areas. Plate data must be deleted after 30 days unless it relates to a criminal investigation or court case. ALPR vendors may not access, sell or share the data, and a person whose data a vendor misuses on purpose or through gross negligence can sue for damages. Lawmakers have said they may push for a full ban on Flock-style cameras in 2027.

Full entry · Bill text
In effect
Seminole Nation (OK) Data Center / GenAI Moratorium

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma · Effective March 7, 2026 · Seminole Nation of Oklahoma Tribal Council Resolution (Mar. 7, 2026)

First tribal council in the United States to fully bar inquiries, discussions, and development of any data center or generative AI hyperscale infrastructure within Seminole Nation territory. Unanimous (24-0) vote citing water-contamination and sovereignty concerns.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Ohio PUCO data center energy service tariff, 85% minimum take (2025)

Ohio · Effective July 23, 2025 · Ohio — PUCO-approved AEP Ohio data center energy service tariff (July 2025), O.R.C. § 4909.18; 85% minimum subscribed-usage payment, 25 MW threshold, up to 12 years

In July 2025 the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio approved what a legal survey describes as 'a landmark tariff structure' for data center electricity service. Its core requirement is a MINIMUM TAKE: new data center customers must PAY FOR AT LEAST 85% OF THEIR SUBSCRIBED ELECTRICITY USAGE, REGARDLESS OF ACTUAL CONSUMPTION, for UP TO 12 YEARS. Understanding why that is a consumer protection requires seeing the problem it solves. When a data center asks a utility for hundreds of megawatts, the utility must plan, and often build, generation and transmission to serve it. Those costs are recovered from the whole ratepayer base over decades. If the data center then uses far less than it subscribed for — because the project shrank, the AI buildout slowed, or it was only ever speculative interest at several sites at once — the infrastructure still exists and everyone else pays for it. A minimum-take provision moves that risk onto the party that caused it. Subscribe for 500 megawatts and you pay for at least 425, whether you use it or not. It also does something subtler and arguably more valuable: it disciplines the forecast. A developer shopping the same nominal load around five utilities has every reason to overstate demand when subscription is free and no reason to do so when 85% of it is a binding financial commitment. Much of the grid-planning anxiety recorded throughout this dataset — PJM's 2030 reliability warnings, the substation-capacity constraints Eureka's planners described, the ratepayer bills in Tennessee, Oklahoma, New Jersey and Arizona — rests on load forecasts that may be inflated by exactly this dynamic. Ohio's tariff is the mechanism most directly aimed at it, and it operates through utility regulation rather than zoning, which means it reaches every data center in the service territory without any municipality having to act.

Full entry · Legal analysis
In effect
Tohono O'odham Research Code

Tohono O'odham Nation · Effective May 23, 2013 · 17 Tohono O'odham Code ch. 8 (Resolution No. 13-165, May 23, 2013)

Tohono O'odham Nation's research code establishes a tribal IRB with sole authority to control publication of all research, disclosures, and findings on tribal land. Vests ownership of all research-derived work product and copyrights — including AI/data products — with the Nation.

Full entry · Statute
Enacted (not yet in effect)
AI Safety Measures Act (frontier model audits)

Illinois · Effective January 1, 2027 · IL SB315 (104th General Assembly, 2025-2026)

Illinois is the first state to require independent third-party safety audits of the largest 'frontier' AI developers (companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google DeepMind). Covered developers — those with >$500M annual gross revenue whose models meet defined compute thresholds — must publish and annually update a frontier AI safety framework addressing catastrophic risks (defined as incidents threatening 50+ deaths, serious injuries, or $1B+ in damages), file transparency reports before deploying new or substantially modified models, report critical safety incidents within 72 hours (24 hours for imminent harm), and protect whistleblowers. Enforced by the Illinois Emergency Management Agency and Office of Homeland Security with the Attorney General; civil penalties; no private right of action. Law takes effect January 1, 2027; audit requirements operative January 1, 2028.

Full entry · Bill text
Enacted (not yet in effect)
California AB 2071 digital wellness curriculum (2026)

California · Effective January 1, 2027 · Cal. A.B. 2071 (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.) — digital wellness in middle and high school health education (signed September 10, 2026; effective January 1, 2027)

California Assembly Bill 2071 integrates DIGITAL WELLNESS into middle and high school health classes. Students are to be taught to identify unhealthy technology habits, protect their personal safety, and EVALUATE THE CREDIBILITY OF DIGITAL CONTENT — which is media and AI literacy placed inside the health curriculum rather than a computer science elective. Governor Newsom signed it on September 10, 2026. Two things distinguish this bill. It was CO-AUTHORED BY STUDENTS, which is unusual for any statute and especially for one governing their own schooling. And it was publicly SUPPORTED by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which opposed AB 1709 in the same signing package on First Amendment grounds. EFF praised AB 2071 as 'an affirmative and constitutional way' to approach youth online safety, on the principle that real digital safety comes from preparation, not isolation. That contrast is the reason this entry sits alongside the restriction-based measures rather than being treated as a minor curriculum bill: California signed, on a single day, both a measure that limits what minors may access and a measure that equips them to handle it, and the civil liberties community drew a sharp line between the two approaches.

Full entry · Legal analysis
Enacted (not yet in effect)
Oklahoma SB 259 Groundwater Modernization Act (2026)

Oklahoma · Effective November 1, 2026 · Okla. S.B. 259 (2026) (Groundwater Modernization Act) (eff. Nov. 1, 2026)

Oklahoma's Groundwater Modernization Act, Senate Bill 259, was signed on August 6, 2026 and takes effect November 1, 2026. It requires water permit holders to file annual water-use reports with the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, and directs the Board to write rules for reviewing those reports, investigating complaints of waste, and imposing penalties for overuse. The structure matters: reporting alone produces data nobody acts on, so the Act pairs the disclosure duty with an investigation power and a penalty power in the same statute. It was signed as half of a package with House Bill 2992, the Data Center Customer Ratepayer Protection Act — legislators presented the two together as addressing the two resources data centers strain hardest. The Act is not limited to data centers; it reaches all water permit holders, which makes it broader in application than most 2026 data-center-driven measures while still being the instrument Oklahoma chose to answer data center water use.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Utah EO 2026-08 pro-human AI in state government

Utah · Effective October 6, 2026 · Utah Exec. Order No. 2026-08 (Oct. 6, 2026)

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox signed an executive order on Oct. 6, 2026 setting rules for how executive-branch agencies use artificial intelligence. Agencies must avoid AI tools that do not follow the state's 'pro-human' principles, document how AI systems and their inputs and outputs figure in decisions that affect the public, and have staff complete AI literacy training. The Department of Government Operations must keep human-in-the-loop review for determinations affecting individual rights when helping agencies deploy AI.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Maryland EO 01.01.2026.16 data center framework (2026)

Maryland · Effective September 23, 2026 · Md. Exec. Order 01.01.2026.16 (Sept. 23, 2026)

Maryland Governor Wes Moore signed an executive order on September 23, 2026 that sets one statewide review process for large data centers, meaning those with 25 megawatts or more of peak electric demand. A new Maryland Data Center Accountability Task Force will judge each project on five principles: ratepayer and grid protection, economic benefit, community voice, environmental protection, and transparency. Each project gets a public rating of Aligned, Conditionally Aligned or Not Aligned. For projects rated Not Aligned, or that never ask for a rating, state agencies will not offer letters of support, advocacy or incentives, and will hold off on substantive permit review until local land-use approvals are in place. The order also bars executive agencies from signing non-disclosure agreements with data center developers, and creates a public Data Center Dashboard updated monthly.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Virginia EO 22 (2026) — data center accountability + AI task force

Virginia · Effective September 18, 2026 · Va. Exec. Order No. 22 (Sept. 18, 2026)

Virginia's governor signed an executive order on September 18, 2026 that does two separate things: it starts implementing a new Virginia Data Center Accountability Framework, and it creates a rapid-response AI Task Force. Most of the data center half is instruction — agencies are told to study, draft, consult and report back within 120, 180 and 240 days. TWO provisions bite immediately. First, no executive branch agency may enter into, enforce, or require a nondisclosure agreement that keeps the public from learning material information about a proposed commercial data center, its public incentives, its expected resource demands, or its community impacts; existing NDAs are honored, but new ones (absent extraordinary circumstances such as national security) violate the order. Second, effective on issuance, the Virginia Economic Development Partnership may no longer give a new data center project with anticipated peak demand of 25 MW or more any assistance through the Virginia Business Ready Sites Program, any expedited permitting program, or any similar discretionary state site-readiness or expedited-review program. The order also DESIGNATES the Eastern Virginia Groundwater Management Area a cooling water scarcity area and tells DEQ to expedite rules for noise and for cooling water scarcity. READ THE PRESS COVERAGE CAREFULLY: national and local outlets reported that Virginia was 'eliminating by-right approval' and 'requiring local approval of any data center using more than 25 megawatts.' Those are items in the framework the governor will ask the 2027 General Assembly to pass. THEY ARE NOT IN THIS ORDER. A governor cannot rewrite local land use law by executive order, and this one does not try to. What the order's own 25 MW threshold governs is eligibility for STATE economic-development assistance, not local approval.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Nevada EO 2026-005 — responsible data center standard

Nevada · Effective September 18, 2026 · Nev. Exec. Order No. 2026-005 (Sept. 18, 2026) — Nevada Standard for Responsible Data Center Development

Nevada's governor signed an executive order creating what his office calls the Nevada Standard for Responsible Data Center Development. It works through the state's tax-abatement gate rather than through zoning or permitting: a data center developer that wants a partial tax abatement from the Governor's Office of Economic Development must now pay the Local School Support Tax IN FULL — that portion may not be abated in any amount — and must sign a binding Nevada Community Support Commitment before its application can go to the GOED Board at all. The commitment covers siting, neighboring communities, workforce, community benefits and transparency, and requires the developer to meet local water standards, to cover the cost of serving its own facility rather than passing that cost to other ratepayers, and to avoid straining the electrical grid during emergencies. The order sets a floor: a combined sales and use tax rate of not less than 4.6 percent, made up of the Sales and Use Tax Act and the Local School Support Tax, neither abatable. It also directs the state to produce a Responsible Speed to Power Plan identifying the generation and transmission needed to serve anticipated large-load demand through 2036. WHAT IT DOES NOT DO: it does not restrict, cap, or ban data center construction anywhere in Nevada. A developer willing to forgo a state tax abatement is not reached by this order at all. Its background matters for reading its strength — a 2015 abatement statute had obliged GOED to grant abatements to data centers meeting employment, wage and investment thresholds, with no energy or water protections and no discretion to refuse; the 2025 Legislature restored the Board's authority to deny, reduce or condition an award, and this order exercises that recovered discretion.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Oregon state-land data center transaction pause (2026)

Oregon · Effective September 8, 2026 · Oregon — Governor's directive pausing state land transactions and permits for new data centers (issued on or about September 8, 2026; effective through July 1, 2027)

Governor Tina Kotek ordered Oregon state agencies to immediately stop processing unapproved land transactions and permits for new data center projects on public land, a pause that runs through July 1, 2027. It covers easements, leases, rentals, land-use permits, and sales or transfers of state-owned property for data centers. The reach of this measure is specific and should not be overstated: it governs what the state does with land it owns. It is not a statewide moratorium on data centers, and it does not restrict a developer who buys private land and goes to a city or county for approval. What it does is remove the state itself as a supplier of data center sites for nearly a year. Kotek's stated reason is that rapid data center growth should not shift utility and infrastructure costs onto Oregonians. The order follows her earlier decision to block the sale of 32 acres of state land at the Mill Creek Corporate Center in Salem that had been proposed for a data center, and it sits on top of the 2025 POWER Act, which raised electricity rates for data center corporations while lowering them for other Portland General Electric customers. An advisory committee formed in January 2026 is due to deliver recommendations by the end of the year, which the Governor plans to turn into legislation in the 2027 session. Demonstrators at the Capitol the same week pressed her to go further than state land.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Delaware HB 310 large-load tax credit bar (2026)

Delaware · Effective August 26, 2026 · Del. H.B. 310, 153rd Gen. Assemb. (2026)

Delaware House Bill 310 prohibits large energy-use facilities from qualifying for job-creation business tax credits and license fee reductions. The logic is straightforward and rarely legislated: incentives designed to reward employment should not flow to facilities whose defining characteristic is enormous resource consumption and comparatively few permanent jobs. Rather than argue the point project by project, Delaware removed the eligibility. It was signed by Governor Matt Meyer on August 26, 2026 as one of four bills in the Energy Consumer Protection package, effective immediately. Most states in 2026 addressed data centers through moratoriums, zoning or utility cost allocation; disqualifying them from economic development incentives is a distinct lever, and one that operates on the state's own fiscal exposure rather than on siting or rates.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Delaware SB 326 utility capital expenditure oversight (2026)

Delaware · Effective August 26, 2026 · Del. S.B. 326, 153rd Gen. Assemb. (2026)

Delaware Senate Bill 326 places limits and enhanced oversight on the non-mandatory capital expenditures that for-profit monopoly utilities such as Delmarva Power can recover from standard residential ratepayers. It is the broadest of the four bills Governor Matt Meyer signed on August 26, 2026, because it is not confined to data centers — it constrains what a regulated monopoly can charge households for discretionary capital spending generally. Its inclusion in the Energy Consumer Protection package reflects the underlying concern: if large-load customers drive a utility's capital programme, the recovery question reaches every residential bill, and limiting discretionary recovery closes a route that a data-center-specific rule would leave open.

Full entry · Agency page
247 more
Hualapai Tribal Council data center opposition resolution · Hualapai Tribe (AZ) · In effect
Rhode Island ALPR installation pause and 60-day review (2026) · Rhode Island · In effect
Kentucky Beshear data center executive order (2026) · Kentucky · In effect
Oklahoma HB 2992 data center ratepayer protection (2026) · Oklahoma · In effect
Ohio PUCO data center default service notice order (2026) · Ohio · In effect
Arizona ACC cooperative large-load process (2026) · Arizona · In effect
Oneida Nation (WI) temporary data center moratorium (2026) · Oneida Nation (WI) · In effect
Virginia SCC data center transmission cost order (2026) · Virginia · In effect
Kentucky HB 58 ALPR limits and 90-day retention (2026) · Kentucky · In effect
NY Hochul EO — Statewide Data Center Moratorium (2026) · New York · In effect
Virginia § 15.2-2209.5 data center siting disclosure law (2026) · Virginia · In effect
Illinois data center tax-incentive pause (DCEO, July 2026) · Illinois · In effect
Indiana data center local revenue share, IC 6-2.5-15-15.5 (2026) · Indiana · In effect
PR Ley 116-2026 (AI Bot Disclosure in Gov. Services) · Puerto Rico · In effect
FL Rule 2.515 amendment — AI citation certification (eff. Jun. 15, 2026) · Florida · In effect
Maryland AI Ready Schools Act, SB 720 (2026) · Maryland · In effect
Ohio — DeWine pause of the data center sales tax exemption program (2026) · Ohio · In effect
CA EO N-6-26 (AI Workforce) · California · In effect
Utah HB 76 data center water transparency (2026) · Utah · In effect
Ohio statewide school AI policy mandate (2026) · Ohio · In effect
Cherokee Nation AI Policy · Cherokee Nation (OK) · In effect
Arkansas public entity AI/ADS policy mandate (Act 848, 2025) · Arkansas · In effect
New York LOADinG Act (oversight of state-agency automated decisions) · New York · In effect
An Order Establishing the Maine Artificial Intelligence Task · Maine · In effect
OR PUC Data Center Rate Class · OR · In effect
NCAI Res. NC-24-008 (Digital Sovereignty) · National Congress of American Indians · In effect
VA SCC Data Center Rate Case · VA · In effect
Cherokee Nation EO 2024-07-CTH · Cherokee Nation (OK) · In effect
NY ITS AI Policy P24-001 · NY · In effect
CA EO N-12-23 (GenAI) · CA · In effect
ME LD 1585 (FR limitation) · ME · In effect
WA SB 6280 (2020, first-in-nation state FR-government law) · WA · In effect
VT S.124 (statewide FR moratorium) · VT · In effect
NCAI Res. KAN-18-011 (IDS) · National Congress of American Indians · In effect
VA PDD Act (2017 — first) · Virginia · In effect
UT drone-wildfire law · Utah · In effect
Navajo Nation Privacy Act · Navajo Nation · In effect
Navajo NNHRRB · Navajo Nation · In effect
AZ Ct. App. — AI fake citations sanctionable regardless of intent · Arizona · In effect
Florida State Board of Education AI rules, K-12 and state colleges (2026) · Florida · Enacted (not yet in effect)
CA AB 2148 no-AI school employees (2026) · CA · Enacted (not yet in effect)
CA SB 1168 — data center grid cost allocation · California · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Utah HB 276 Provenance Act (AI-content labels + platform provenance duties) · Utah · Enacted (not yet in effect)
RAISE Act · New York · Enacted (not yet in effect)
IL EO 2026-07 AI Cabinet (2026) · Illinois · In effect
California EO N-9-26 — accelerated AI oversight and kill-switch study · California · In effect
West Virginia 20-year data center development plan (2026) · West Virginia · In effect
Connecticut ALPR installation pause request and POST guidance (2026) · Connecticut · In effect
Muscogee (Creek) Nation digital infrastructure task force · Muscogee (Creek) Nation · In effect
PR Ley 140-2026 (Gov AI Cybersecurity Training) · Puerto Rico · In effect
Kickapoo Tribe (OK) Data Center Opposition (2026) · Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma · In effect
S731/A796 — Data center ratepayer protection and grid-demand · New Jersey · In effect
Virginia IVO AI Safety Study (SB 384/HB 797, 2026) · Virginia · In effect
NC AI Strategic Roadmap (released Jul. 1, 2026) · North Carolina · In effect
Shoshone-Bannock FHBC Opposition to Pocatello Data Center (2026) · Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Fort Hall Reservation) · In effect
Idaho S1227 (AI in K-12 schools) · Idaho · In effect
Indiana SB 256 (foreign-adversary AI vendor & student rules) · Indiana · In effect
Utah HB 273 (AI in school core standards + required LEA AI policies) · Utah · In effect
Virginia SB 394 (AI-in-schools guidance, board policies, pilot) · Virginia · In effect
Colorado Attorney General Rulemaking for the Automated Decis · Colorado · Proposed / pending
WA SB 5982 (Data Center / Clean Energy) · Washington · In effect
Virginia VITA EA400 AI Utilization Policy (Executive Branch AI deployment standard, 2026) · Virginia · In effect
Executive Order No. 04-26 - Vermont Artificial Intelligence · Vermont · In effect
Order 26-154 Approving PGE Large-Load Tariff Framework for D · Oregon Public Utility Commission (Portland General Electric) · In effect
Model Tariff Framework for Large Load Customers (Docket M-20 · Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission · In effect
SUNY Systemwide Artificial Intelligence Policy · State University of New York (SUNY) · In effect
We Energies Very Large Customer (VLC) Data Center Tariff Ord · Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (We Energies) · In effect
Executive Order N-5-26 - Trusted AI Procurement · California · In effect
GenAI Tools and Acceptable Use Policy · Maine · In effect
AI Systems Code of Ethics and Minimum Risk Management and Go · Texas · In effect
Artificial Intelligence Framework for Utah P-12 Education: G · Utah State Board of Education (USBE) · In effect
Attorney General Tong Memorandum on Artificial Intelligence · Connecticut · In effect
Cherokee Nation EO 2026-02-CTH (Data Center Task Force) · Cherokee Nation (OK) · In effect
New York S8831 (shields public employees from AI displacement) · New York · In effect
LeChee Chapter (Navajo Nation, AZ) data center opposition resolution (2026) · LeChee Chapter (Navajo Nation, AZ) · In effect
Attorneys General Derek Brown and Jeff Jackson Launch Nation · Utah · In effect
Attorney General Mayes Announces Investigation into X's AI C · Arizona · In effect
Executive Order 26-02 (Strategic Framework for Integration o · Missouri · In effect
AI Model Policy for Ohio Districts and Schools · Ohio Department of Education and Workforce · In effect
California SB 524 (AI-written police reports must be disclosed + audited) · California · In effect
SB 53 (Frontier AI Safety) · California · In effect
TRAIGA · Texas · In effect
Guidance for the Safe and Effective Use of Artificial Intell · California Department of Education · In effect
Guam P.L. 38-77 (AI Task Force) · Guam · In effect
AG Sunday Leads Coalition of 42 Attorneys General in Letter · Pennsylvania · In effect
2025 State of Connecticut Artificial Intelligence Inventory · Connecticut · In effect
Acceptable Use Policy for Artificial Intelligence · Mississippi · In effect
New GS-5 Data Center / Large Load Rate Class, DEV 2025 Bienn · Virginia State Corporation Commission (Dominion Energy Virginia) · In effect
Artificial Intelligence Guideline · North Dakota · In effect
AG Jennings Completes Review of OpenAI Recapitalization (Sta · Delaware · In effect
Commonwealth Office of Technology Enterprise Policy CIO-126: · Kentucky · In effect
Montana HB 178 (limits on government AI use) · Montana · In effect
Executive Order JML 25-109: Amended State Government's Use o · Louisiana · In effect
Artificial Intelligence Acceptable Use Policy · Louisiana · In effect
Attorney General Labrador Joins Bipartisan Coalition Urging · Idaho · In effect
Executive Order No. 24: Advancing Trustworthy Artificial Int · North Carolina · In effect
Texas HB 3512 government AI training mandate (2025) · Texas · In effect
TX Government AI Governance (Subchapter S / SB 1964) · Texas · In effect
Attorney General Raoul Urges Tech Companies to Stop the Spre · Illinois · In effect
Attorney General Skrmetti Leads 44 States in Demanding Compa · Tennessee · In effect
Attorney General Brenna Bird Warns of Deepfake Dangers as St · Iowa · In effect
Attorney General Ken Paxton Investigates Meta and Character. · Texas · In effect
Executive Order 5-2025 (406 JOBS Initiative) · Montana · In effect
Adoption and Usage of Artificial Intelligence: Guidelines an · Michigan · In effect
ND HB 1613 (drone evidence limits extended to robots; no armed police robots) · North Dakota · In effect
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Governance Policy, Standard, an · Idaho · In effect
Executive Order 51 (2025): First-In-The-Nation Agentic Artif · Virginia · In effect
AEP Ohio Data Center Tariff Order (Case 24-0508-EL-ATA) · Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (AEP Ohio) · In effect
Minnesota State systemwide Generative AI guidance and approv · Minnesota State (Minnesota State Colleges and Universities) · In effect
Nevada AB 406 (no AI replacing school counselors) · Nevada · In effect
Va. Code 19.2-11.14 (humans, not AI, must decide bail/sentencing/parole) · Virginia · In effect
New York A433 (state agencies must list AI employment tools) · New York · In effect
Generative AI Responsible Use (SS-25-001) · Georgia · In effect
New AI Features for State of Alaska Employees - OIT Guidance · Alaska · In effect
State of New Mexico: Generative AI Use Guidelines Policy (Ve · New Mexico · In effect
Utah S.B. 180 (AI-written police reports need a disclaimer + officer sign-off) · Utah · In effect
The State of Maryland's Responsible AI Policy Implementation · Maryland · In effect
New Mexico AI Guidance for K-12 Education 1.0 · New Mexico Public Education Department · In effect
MT Right to Compute Act · Montana · In effect
Board of Regents Policy 6.28, Use of Artificial Intelligence · University System of Georgia (USG) · In effect
KS AI Foreign Platforms Ban · Kansas · In effect
Policy on the Acceptable and Responsible Use of Artificial I · Illinois · In effect
Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy (ENTERPRISE P · Iowa · In effect
Kentucky SB 4 (AI Governance) · Kentucky · In effect
State of Wisconsin Acceptable Technology Use, Access, and Se · Wisconsin · In effect
Large-Load Flexible Tariff Investigation for Facilities Reac · Utah Public Service Commission (Rocky Mountain Power / PacifiCorp) · In effect
WVDE Artificial Intelligence Guidance (v1.2) · West Virginia Department of Education · In effect
UT System Policy IT0002 / procedure, Acceptable Use of Gener · University of Tennessee System · In effect
LA Metro AI Weapons-Detection Pilot Expansion (Evolv/pillar · Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) · In effect
I&M Industrial Power (Large Load) Tariff Settlement Order (C · Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (Indiana Michigan Power) · In effect
Responsible AI Usage Policy (107-004-190) · Oregon · In effect
Initial Report - Arkansas Artificial Intelligence and Analyt · Arkansas · In effect
CSU AI-Empowered University System initiative and systemwide · California State University (CSU System) · In effect
Alabama Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy (AI-GV-P2) · Alabama · In effect
Rule Establishing Special Contract Terms for Large-Load Cust · Georgia Public Service Commission (Georgia Power) · In effect
Attorney General Bonta Legal Advisories on the Application o · California · In effect
Guidance on Algorithmic Discrimination and the New Jersey La · New Jersey · In effect
Executive Order No. 1584 (Fostering Stakeholder Collaboratio · Mississippi · In effect
California SB 896 (state AI risk analysis + AI disclaimers on gov communications) · California · In effect
Texas A&M System Regulation 29.01.05, Artificial Intelligenc · Texas A&M University System · In effect
Policy on the Responsible and Ethical Use of Artificial Inte · Nevada · In effect
Artificial Intelligence in Louisiana Schools: Guidance for K · Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE) · In effect
North Carolina State Government Responsible Use of Artificia · North Carolina · In effect
Colorado Roadmap for AI in K-12 Education · Colorado Department of Education · In effect
Empowering Lifelong Learning: AI Guidance for Enhancing K-12 · Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) · In effect
Delaware AI Commission Act (government AI inventory) · Delaware · In effect
Maryland AI Governance Act (2024) · Maryland · In effect
New Hampshire HB 1688 (state-agency AI limits) · New Hampshire · In effect
Human-Centered AI Guidance for K-12 Public Schools · Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) · In effect
South Carolina State Agencies' Artificial Intelligence (AI) · South Carolina · In effect
AI Policy Template for Local Education Agencies · Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE) · In effect
SUNY generative-AI education initiative (Empire AI / systemw · State University of New York (SUNY) · In effect
NM EO 2024-011 · NM · In effect
Artificial Intelligence: Guidance for K-12 Classrooms · Mississippi Department of Education (MDE) · In effect
NJ TRANSIT AI Video-Analytics Grade-Crossing Safety System ( · New Jersey Transit (NJ TRANSIT) · In effect
California GenAI Procurement Guidelines and Toolkit · California · In effect
State of Arizona Statewide Policy P2000 - Generative AI Poli · Arizona · In effect
Executive Order 24-06: Artificial Intelligence and Data Cent · Rhode Island · In effect
Executive Order No. 738 - Alabama Generative Artificial Inte · Alabama · In effect
MA EO 629 · MA · In effect
MI SOS Deepfake Election Policy · MI · In effect
Mayor's Order 2024-028: Articulating DC's Artificial Intelli · District of Columbia · In effect
OCTO AI/ML Governance Policy · District of Columbia · Proposed / pending
Cease-and-Desist Order to Life Corporation over AI voice-clo · New Hampshire · In effect
WA EO 24-01 · WA · In effect
IL EO 2024-01 · IL · In effect
VA EO 30 (2024) · VA · Repealed / replaced
NC Generative AI Implementation Recommendations and Consider · North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) · In effect
MD EO 01.01.2024.02 · MD · In effect
Acceptable Use of Artificial Intelligence Technologies (NYS- · New York · In effect
California AB 302 (state must inventory its high-risk automated decision systems) · California · In effect
State of Indiana Artificial Intelligence Policy · Indiana · In effect
Public Artificial Intelligence Services Security Standard · Minnesota · In effect
Use of AI in Oklahoma State Government Standard · Oklahoma · In effect
State of South Dakota Generative Artificial Intelligence Gui · South Dakota · In effect
Enterprise Artificial Intelligence Policy (200-POL-007) · Tennessee · In effect
CCC systemwide AI guidance and HUMANS responsible-AI framewo · California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office · In effect
Penn State systemwide Generative AI Guidelines · Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) · In effect
USVI Act 8797 (RTCC) · US Virgin Islands · In effect
Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in State of Ohio Solutio · Ohio · In effect
OR EO 23-06 · OR · In effect
Policy on Responsible Use of Generative Artificial Intellige · New Jersey · In effect
Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in K-12 Classrooms G · Oregon Department of Education · In effect
NJ EO 346 (AI Task Force) · NJ · In effect
Commissioner's Determination Prohibiting Facial Recognition · New York State Education Department · In effect
PA EO 2023-19 (GenAI) · PA · In effect
OK EO 2023-24 · OK · In effect
New York Biometrics in Schools Ban (statewide prohibition on · New York State (Education Law / biometrics ban) · In effect
WI EO 211 · WI · In effect
Interim Guidelines for Purposeful and Responsible Use of Gen · Washington · In effect
State of Kansas Generative Artificial Intelligence Policy (P · Kansas · In effect
CT SB 1103 (state-government AI oversight) · Connecticut · In effect
PA Act 130 of 2022 (HAVs) · Pennsylvania · In effect
SEPTA ZeroEyes AI Gun-Detection Pilot Program · Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) · In effect
OH HB 7 (2022 AV) · Ohio · In effect
Vermont H.410 / Act 132 (inventory of state AI / automated decision systems) · Vermont · In effect
UC Responsible AI Principles and AI Council governance frame · University of California (UC System) · In effect
PA PDD law (Act 130/2020) · Pennsylvania · In effect
Attorney General Donovan Sues Clearview AI for Violations of · Vermont · In effect
AR Act 1096 (2019 AV) · Arkansas · In effect
UT HB 101 (2019 AV statute) · Utah · In effect
OH PDD law (SB 156) · Ohio · In effect
BART Surveillance Technology Ordinance · Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) · In effect
AZ PDD law (HB 2422) · Arizona · In effect
NE LB 989 (2018 AV) · Nebraska · In effect
AZ EO 2018-04 (AV oversight) · Arizona · In effect
NC HB 469 (2017 AV statute) · North Carolina · In effect
FL PDD law (2017) · Florida · In effect
TX SB 2205 (2017 AV statute) · Texas · In effect
IL AV local-preemption (2017) · Illinois · In effect
GA SB 219 (2017 AV statute) · Georgia · In effect
TN SB 151 (2017 AV Act) · Tennessee · In effect
WI PDD Act 13 (2017) · Wisconsin · In effect
ID PDD law (HB 191) · Idaho · In effect
CO SB 17-213 (AV statute) · Colorado · In effect
NY AV testing pilot · New York · In effect
MI SAVE Acts (2016 AV package) · Michigan · In effect
FL HB 7027 (2016 driverless AV) · Florida · In effect
CA SB 1298 (2012 AV authorization) · California · In effect
Guam EDPA (5 GCA Ch. 14) · Guam · In effect
NV AB 511 (2011 — first AV statute) · Nevada · In effect
Pennsylvania Municipal Data Center Moratorium Bills (Coleman · Pennsylvania · Proposed / pending
Virginia FY2026-2028 Biennial Budget: Data Center Electricit · Virginia · Enacted (not yet in effect)
House Bill 2512 — Banning surveillance pricing by rideshare · Pennsylvania · Proposed / pending
North Carolina Senate Bill 730 (Data Center Water and Coolin · North Carolina · Proposed / pending
Senate Bill 1345 - Municipal Data Center Development Morator · Pennsylvania · Proposed / pending
Arizona HB 2592 AI state agencies — vetoed 2026 · Arizona · Vetoed
PR P. del S. 769 / Instituto IA (Express Veto) · Puerto Rico · Vetoed
NY PSC utility AI inquiry (Case 26-M-0552) · New York · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Newark Liberty Facial Recognition eGates for TSA Screening · Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Newark Liberty International Airport) · Expired
Newark Biometric Self-Boarding E-Gate Pilot (with IDEMIA/Luf · Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Newark Liberty International Airport, Terminal B) · Expired
LG&E/KU CPCN Order Addressing Extremely High Load Factor Dat · Kentucky Public Service Commission (LG&E and KU) · Proposed / pending
Large Load Tariff Docket Opened via Duke Energy Progress/Car · Public Service Commission of South Carolina · Proposed / pending
MTA AI Video Analytics Solicitation for Subway Camera Monito · New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) · Proposed / pending
MTA/NYPD Evolv AI Weapons-Detection Scanner Pilot in NYC Sub · Metropolitan Transportation Authority / NYPD subway weapons scanners · Proposed / pending
PR P. de la C. 347 (pocket vetoed 2026) · Puerto Rico · Vetoed
PR P. del S. 731 (AI Public Procurement Law) · Puerto Rico · Proposed / pending
New Jersey Quijano AI data center delay and study commission bill (2026) · New Jersey · Proposed / pending
Ohio bill to prohibit data center property tax exemptions (2026) · Ohio · Proposed / pending
PA HB 2800 frontier AI risk prevention · Pennsylvania · Proposed / pending
PA HB 2829 Advanced AI Accountability and Innovation Act · Pennsylvania · Proposed / pending
PR P. del S. 68 (Gov AI Framework) · Puerto Rico · Proposed / pending
PR P. del S. 348 (AI in Schools) · Puerto Rico · Proposed / pending
PR R.C. del S. 1 (AI Registry) · Puerto Rico · Proposed / pending
NJ developer litigation against municipal data center bans (2026) · New Jersey · Blocked / in litigation
Vermont — Gov. Scott veto of large data center regulatory framework (2026) · Vermont · Vetoed
NY S3971B (2019, AI study commission, died) · NY · Expired

County government use of AI rules (157)

In effect
Lawrence County IL two-year data center moratorium (2026)

Lawrence County, IL · Effective September 17, 2026 · Lawrence County, Ill. — unanimous two-year moratorium on data centers exceeding 10,000 square feet (2026)

The Lawrence County Board voted UNANIMOUSLY to approve a TWO-YEAR moratorium on data centers, pausing new development across the county. The temporary ban applies to any data center facility EXCEEDING 10,000 SQUARE FEET. Board members said the pause will give local officials and residents time to study the potential impacts, infrastructure demands and community effects before allowing projects to move forward. Board Chairman Jim Brewer put the reasoning in unusually candid terms: 'We did the moratorium so we as a board and the citizens could be better educated on problems or possibly benefits of data centers.' And then: 'We don't know that, but I would rather put a moratorium on something that is unknown than let it go through.' That is a precautionary rationale stated without varnish — not a claim that data centers are harmful, but a claim that the county does not yet know, and that not knowing is itself a reason to wait. Two years is at the long end of what this dataset records. Most county pauses run six to eighteen months, and the longer the term, the more a moratorium depends on the county showing it is actively drafting regulations rather than simply refusing to decide. Nothing in the reporting indicates a challenge, and Illinois does not impose the express statutory ceiling that Minnesota and Wisconsin do.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Los Angeles County prohibition on data centers in unincorporated areas (2026)

Los Angeles County, CA · Effective September 17, 2026 · Los Angeles County, Cal. — Department of Regional Planning memorandum prohibiting large-scale AI data center development in unincorporated areas, September 17, 2026, pending zoning code amendment

Los Angeles County's planning director ordered an IMMEDIATE PROHIBITION on the development of large-scale data centers that power artificial intelligence across the county's UNINCORPORATED AREAS. Department of Regional Planning Director AMY BODEK issued the directive in a memorandum on Thursday, September 17, 2026, saying it is intended to serve as INTERIM GUIDANCE FOR PLANNING STAFF while the county moves toward codifying the prohibition in its zoning code. This is the largest jurisdiction to act in this dataset. Los Angeles County is the most populous county in the United States, and its unincorporated areas alone hold more people than many states. The path here is worth following because it is not a moratorium. Board Chair and First District Supervisor HILDA SOLIS introduced a motion in April 2026 addressing public health and environmental concerns about data centers, and THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVED IT UNANIMOUSLY. The county's report back on that motion identified ZONING CHANGES THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THESE FACILITIES — not pause them. The planning director's memorandum holds the line in the meantime; Solis says she intends to bring further actions before the Board to implement the Regional Planning and Public Health departments' recommendations and amend the zoning code. Solis gave two reasons. The first is local and specific: 'I introduced it in response to concerns raised by San Gabriel Valley residents who were understandably concerned about the effects of data centers in their communities, concerns that have since been reflected nationwide.' The second is not local at all: 'The need for such a ban has only been further underscored by alarming developments from the AI sector on CATASTROPHIC IMPACTS THE TECHNOLOGY MAY HAVE ON HUMANITY.' That is the second American local government in this dataset, after Gary, Indiana, to put AI existential risk on the record as a reason for a land-use restriction — and unlike Gary it is paired with an ordinary public-health and environmental record.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Sauk County WI 18-month data center moratorium (2026)

Sauk County, WI · Effective September 15, 2026 · Sauk County, Wis. — 18-month moratorium on data center applications and zoning approvals, adopted 27-1 on September 15, 2026

The Sauk County Board voted 27-1 on Tuesday, September 15, 2026 to stop accepting data center applications and granting data center zoning approvals for 18 months in the parts of the county under county zoning. County leaders say they are not aware of any data center project currently planned in Sauk County. That is the point. Supervisor William Kinsman told the board the county has no specific mechanism in its zoning ordinance to address a data center proposal at all, and officials said the goal is to get regulations in place BEFORE a developer comes forward. This is pre-emptive rather than reactive, which matters legally: a moratorium enacted while an application is pending invites vested-rights litigation, and this dataset already records several moratoriums defeated exactly that way. Sauk County faces no such exposure. One caution belongs on the face of this entry: 18 months is a long moratorium under Wisconsin practice, where the usual understanding is an initial term of up to 12 months with one 6-month extension. An 18-month term adopted in a single enactment is at the outer edge of that framework, and its defensibility, if challenged, would turn on the county's record of actively drafting regulations.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Latah County ID data center regulations (2026)

Latah County, ID · Effective September 15, 2026 · Latah County, Idaho — data center ordinance adopted September 15, 2026 (conditional use in industrial zone; groundwater cooling prohibition; noise and electrical limits; annual electrical reporting)

Latah County's Commissioners approved new data center rules on Tuesday, September 15, 2026 — and the notable thing is that they adopted SUBSTANTIVE STANDARDS instead of a pause, at a moment when almost every other county in this dataset was buying time. The ordinance applies to data centers proposed on Latah County land, NOT inside incorporated cities, and it makes data centers a CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE in the industrial zoning designation. The strongest provision is about water. 'Consumptive use of groundwater for routine cooling operations is prohibited,' the ordinance states, and 'Groundwater shall not be used as the primary source of cooling water.' Groundwater may still be used for non-consumptive or sanitary purposes. A company proposing a data center must also produce a WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN detailing how it will minimise impacts on the local water supply. The county is following recently passed Idaho legislation limiting how much groundwater may be used for data centers. The ordinance also caps NOISE and ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION, and — unusually — imposes an ongoing reporting duty: 'An annual report shall be submitted that details electrical consumption, maximum peak demand, and any significant modifications to the electrical system.' That is a continuing obligation, not a one-time permit condition, and very few local measures in this dataset have one. There is no data center proposed in Latah County. At a September 9 public hearing, community members asked for a moratorium or an outright ban. Commissioner Tony Johnson said that since nothing is proposed, a moratorium does not make sense, and that the regulations are the county's way of preparing for what could happen. Planning director Michelle Fuson said it is unlikely a data center will be built on county land, but the county can always modify its rules if it needs to.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Woodford County KY permanent data center ban (2026)

Woodford County, KY · Effective September 8, 2026 · Woodford County, Ky. — Fiscal Court Ordinance (Sept. 8, 2026)

On September 8, 2026 the Woodford County Fiscal Court unanimously passed an ordinance permanently banning the construction of data centers, landfills, and large battery storage systems anywhere in the county. This is a permanent prohibition, not a temporary moratorium — the Kentucky Association of Counties told the Kentucky Lantern that Woodford is the first Kentucky county it is aware of to enact a permanent data center ban, and it places the county among only a handful of local governments nationwide to go that far. Judge-Executive James Kay said the Fiscal Court chose a permanent ban over a temporary pause because residents were universally opposed, framing the ordinance as farmland preservation: 'We are a tight-knit community with a finite, irreplaceable amount of land. Every single acre matters here. Our rolling pastures, our historic farms, our agriculture, are not just scenic views. They are the backbone of our economy.' Large battery storage was included because such systems are frequently paired with hyperscale data centers. Woodford County sits in the Bluegrass region between Lexington and Frankfort; the Fiscal Court had signalled the move in June 2026 when it first voted to block future data centers.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Woodford County KY permanent data center ban (2026)

Woodford County, KY · Effective September 8, 2026 · Woodford County, Ky. — ordinance permanently banning data centers, landfills and large battery storage (adopted September 8, 2026)

On September 8, 2026 the Woodford County Fiscal Court voted unanimously to permanently ban the construction of data centers in the county — the first Kentucky county to do so. This is not a moratorium. Where almost every other local measure in this dataset pauses development for six months, a year, or three years while the jurisdiction writes rules, Woodford County simply prohibited the use. The ordinance also bans landfills and large battery storage systems, which are frequently paired with hyperscale data centers to smooth their electricity demand — so the ban reaches the supporting infrastructure as well as the facility itself. The county framed the decision around farmland rather than electricity or water bills. Judge-Executive James Kay put it as 'Woodford County's future is rooted in our land and water. Our future is farming,' and the county described the ordinance as protecting farmland, honoring farming families and safeguarding the quiet character of the countryside. Woodford County sits in the Bluegrass region, where the land at stake is horse and crop farmland. Kentucky already has a separate two-year moratorium in Bell County and a governor's executive order on data center development; this is the first permanent prohibition.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Rowan County KY two-year data center moratorium (2026)

Rowan County, KY · Effective September 1, 2026 · Rowan County, Ky. — two-year moratorium on large-scale data centers (2026)

The Rowan County Fiscal Court approved a TWO-YEAR moratorium on large-scale data centers, giving county leaders time to consider how future projects would be reviewed before any arrives. County officials were explicit that nothing is pending. Judge-Executive Harry Clark: 'First and foremost, we have not been approached by anyone for a data center.' Jason Slone, president and CEO of the Morehead-Rowan County Chamber of Commerce, put the reasoning plainly — 'But it is going to be a matter of time at some point.' Two years is long for a local pause, and it sits well beyond the twelve-to-eighteen-month windows that municipal officials elsewhere in this dataset have described as the outer limit of what a moratorium can defend. Kentucky county fiscal courts, however, operate differently from municipal zoning boards, and the state's other long pause — Bell County's two years — was adopted without apparent challenge. Rowan County joins an unusually active Kentucky cohort: Woodford County adopted the state's first permanent ban in September 2026, Bell County a two-year moratorium, Logan County a twelve-month water-focused pause, Mercer County a one-year pause, Nicholasville six months, and Lexington-Fayette Urban County its own moratorium, alongside a governor's executive order on data center development.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Knox County TN Flock camera ban and removal order (2026)

Knox County, TN · Effective August 31, 2026 · Knox County, Tenn. — emergency ordinance banning license plate readers and requiring removal of all 143 Flock cameras within 30 days (adopted August 31, 2026)

Knox County Commission unanimously passed an emergency ordinance on August 31, 2026 banning license plate readers in the county and ordering all 143 Flock cameras removed within thirty days. Because it was adopted as an emergency measure it required only a single vote and took effect immediately. Commissioner Adam Thompson brought the ordinance after sustained public opposition. Two details from the run-up are worth recording because they explain why the reaction was so complete. In late 2025 the Commission had approved a $1.5 million grant to the Knox County Sheriff's Office under the Tennessee Violent Crime Intervention Fund to advance crime-solving technology. And the Sheriff's Office had spent years buying Flock cameras in batches priced just ten dollars under the $25,000 threshold that would have required mayoral review — a procurement pattern that kept a 143-camera surveillance network out of the approval process that was supposed to catch it. Knox County is not simply declining to renew a contract, which is what most jurisdictions in this dataset have done. It banned the technology and ordered the existing hardware physically removed on a deadline.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Henry County VA data center district ordinance (2026)

Henry County, VA · Effective August 25, 2026 · Henry Cnty., Va. — Data Center District Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Aug. 25, 2026)

Henry County's Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted a revised data center ordinance on August 25, 2026, and its structure does more work than a moratorium would. The ordinance creates a new Data Center District (D-C). Data centers are permitted only inside that district, and only then with a special use permit approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The catch — and it is deliberate — is that no property in Henry County is currently zoned D-C. Any company wanting to build must first acquire or control land, then apply to have it rezoned into the district, and then separately win a special use permit. Two discretionary approvals stand between a developer and a building permit, with no site anywhere in the county pre-cleared. The ordinance also sets a 1,000-foot setback from any property not zoned industrial, and imposes requirements on noise, water use, electrical infrastructure, cooling systems, screening, lighting, emergency response and decommissioning. It is a permanent regulatory framework, not a pause. The board reached it the hard way: more than 100 residents packed the July 28, 2026 public hearing to raise concerns about water, noise, health and animal habitats, and the board sent the draft back to the drawing board before returning with this stricter version. Henry County is in southern Virginia on the North Carolina line, around Martinsville.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Nye County NV data center ban in Basin 162 (2026)

Nye County, NV · Effective August 18, 2026 · Nye County, Nev. Bill No. 2026-11, amending Nye County Code Title 17 (adopted August 18, 2026)

On August 18, 2026 the Nye County Board of Commissioners voted 5-0 to ban the construction and operation of data centers anywhere in Nevada Hydrographic Basin 162 — the Pahrump Valley groundwater basin, which covers more than 500,000 acres across most of southern Nye County and runs east toward the Clark County line. This is not a pause: it is a permanent zoning prohibition, adopted as Bill No. 2026-11 amending Title 17 of the county code. Nye County is the first local government in Nevada to ban data centers outright rather than temporarily. The stated reason is water. Basin 162 is already over-appropriated, meaning the state has granted rights to more water than the basin reliably produces, and commissioners concluded that adding a large new industrial water user would deepen the shortfall. The ban blocks the proposed 900-acre Manse Technology Campus from Gigawatt Development Partners LLC, even though that company says it had already secured water rights for the project. Elsewhere in Nye County a separate county-wide moratorium adopted in June 2026 still applies until the county writes permanent data center regulations.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Madison County AR three-year data center moratorium (2026)

Madison County, AR · Effective August 17, 2026 · Madison County, Ark. — three-year data center moratorium with emergency clause (adopted August 17, 2026; expires August 31, 2029)

The Madison County Quorum Court voted unanimously on August 17, 2026 to impose a three-year moratorium on data centers, running through August 31, 2029. The court attached an emergency clause, which meant the moratorium took effect immediately rather than after the usual waiting period — a detail that matters, because a developer cannot file in the gap. The moratorium is written broadly, covering data centers, digital asset mining businesses and other large-scale computer or server operations, so a cryptocurrency mining operation cannot be argued to fall outside it. The stated purpose is to give county officials time to study data centers and develop regulations addressing their potential costs and benefits. Three years is long for a local pause. Madison County is one of five Arkansas counties that adopted three-year moratoriums, and its is the second-longest in the state after Independence County's. Arkansas saw a cluster of these in August 2026.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Independence County AR five-year data center moratorium (2026)

Independence County, AR · Effective August 11, 2026 · Independence County, Ark. — Quorum Court five-year moratorium on data centers (2026)

The Independence County Quorum Court placed a FIVE-YEAR MORATORIUM on data centers, reported on August 11, 2026. Five years is extraordinary. The overwhelming majority of local pauses in this dataset run six to eighteen months; the previous longest recorded here was two years, in Lawrence County, Illinois and in a Nash County-area North Carolina measure. Independence County has adopted a pause two and a half times the usual ceiling. That length is worth flagging carefully rather than celebrating. Moratorium defensibility generally turns on reasonableness and on the municipality showing it is actively working toward permanent regulations — the longer the pause, the harder both are to sustain, because at some point a 'temporary' measure becomes a de facto prohibition adopted without the process a prohibition requires. Several states cap the term by statute precisely for this reason: Minnesota at twelve months, Wisconsin at twelve plus one six-month extension, California at two years in aggregate, Maine at renewable 180-day periods. Arkansas county government operates through the Quorum Court under Amendment 55 to the state constitution, and no equivalent express statutory ceiling on county moratoria is asserted here. No challenge is reported. This entry is recorded because a five-year pause is a real measure with real effect, and because it marks the outer edge of what local governments are currently attempting.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Escambia County FL large-scale data center ban (2026)

Escambia County, FL · Effective August 1, 2026 · Escambia County, Fla. — ordinance banning large-scale data centers in unincorporated areas (approved August 2026)

The Escambia County Commission approved an ordinance BANNING large-scale data centers in the unincorporated areas of the county — everywhere outside the City of Pensacola and the Town of Century — and separately started the process for a moratorium. This is a prohibition, not a pause, which puts it in the small group of permanent bans in this dataset alongside Woodford County Kentucky and Nye County Nevada rather than with the moratoriums that make up most of the 2026 record. The territorial limit is the standard one for county land-use authority: Escambia's ban reaches unincorporated territory only, and the two incorporated municipalities inside the county make their own decisions. Pensacola has a separately indexed data center moratorium of its own. The sequencing is worth noting: the county adopted the ban FIRST and then began a moratorium process, which is the reverse of the usual order. A moratorium is normally the holding action taken while permanent rules are written; here the permanent rule came first, and the moratorium appears intended to cover whatever the ban does not. At a later meeting the commissioners stood firm on the existing ban and took no further action.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Gulf County FL AI data center moratorium (2026)

Gulf County, FL · Effective July 27, 2026 · Gulf County, Fla. — Board of County Commissioners, 4-1 vote, 2026-07-27

The Gulf County Board of County Commissioners voted 4-1 on Monday, July 27, 2026 to approve a one-year moratorium on new AI data centers, to allow time to study potential impacts and develop a policy before any future projects are considered. Commissioner Phil McCroan moved the measure with Commissioner Randy Pridgeon's support; Commissioner Jack Husband cast the dissenting vote.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Austin County TX data center and BESS moratorium (2026)

Austin County, TX · Effective July 27, 2026 · Austin County, Tex. — countywide moratorium on AI data centers and battery energy storage systems (adopted July 27, 2026)

Austin County Commissioners unanimously approved a countywide moratorium on artificial intelligence data centers and battery energy storage systems on July 27, 2026, becoming one of the first Texas counties to do so. The moratorium does not outright bar construction; it pauses approvals so the county can evaluate what these developments do. What sets it apart from almost every other pause in this dataset is what the county said it will examine and what it demands of developers in the meantime. The evaluation covers compliance with health, fire and safety requirements, CYBERSECURITY SAFEGUARDS, and enforcement mechanisms that can actually be applied to these projects in the unincorporated parts of the county — including the possible designation of a dedicated energy development zone. And the moratorium REQUIRES prospective developers to submit an equipment manufacturer audit to the county: a full list of every piece of equipment and every component proposed for use in the project. That is a supply-chain disclosure requirement, and no other local measure indexed here asks for one. It gives a rural county visibility into who made the hardware going into a facility on its land, which is a fire-safety question for battery storage and a security question for computing. Austin County was the second Texas county to adopt a data center moratorium after Hill County; San Marcos was the first Texas city, on June 30, 2026.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Sierra County NM 18-month data center moratorium (2026)

Sierra County, NM · Effective July 21, 2026 · Sierra County, N.M. — 18-month data center moratorium (adopted July 21, 2026)

Sierra County commissioners voted unanimously on July 21, 2026 to impose an eighteen-month moratorium on data centers — one of the longest local pauses in this dataset, and one that nobody expected that morning. The item on the agenda was a resolution simply OPPOSING the development of large-scale data centers in the county, which would have carried no legal force at all. After more than an hour of public comment at the regular Tuesday morning meeting in Truth or Consequences, the commissioners amended the item on the floor into a binding eighteen-month moratorium and passed it. The Albuquerque Journal called it a surprise vote. What prompted it was the emergence of details about a proposed solar-powered data center at Spaceport America, which sits on state trust land inside Sierra County. Opponents argued it would use too much water and damage the environment. Sierra County joined Santa Fe and Socorro counties in pushing back on large-scale data centers near the Spaceport, and New Mexico lawmakers were separately proposing a statewide moratorium for the next legislative session.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Santa Fe County NM data center moratorium (2026)

Santa Fe County, NM · Effective July 9, 2026 · Santa Fe County, N.M. Ordinance No. 2026-06

Section 5 bars the County from accepting any new application for a Development Approval or Development Permit for a Data Center, bars the Board and any County body from further processing or acting on such applications, and bars issuance of any such approval or permit. 'Data Center' means a facility, or proposed expansion, designed or used primarily for housing, managing, operating or transmitting data with a proposed aggregate IT Load Capacity of 1 megawatt or greater, expressly including hyperscale, artificial-intelligence computing, cloud, colocation and cryptocurrency mining facilities, and excluding ordinary computer rooms, server closets and IT equipment incidental to a principal lawful use. Exemptions cover sub-threshold facilities, County-owned or County-operated governmental data processing, applications deemed complete before the effective date, and facilities with vested rights as determined by the County Land Use Administrator.

Full entry · Statute
In effect
Knox County TN one-year data center moratorium (2026)

Knox County, TN · Effective June 23, 2026 · Knox County, Tenn. — one-year data center moratorium resolution (adopted June 23, 2026; expires June 30, 2027)

Knox County Commission adopted a one-year data center moratorium on June 23, 2026. It took effect immediately and runs through June 30, 2027, and the Commission can vote to extend it. The moratorium is unusually carefully drafted for a local measure, and three features are worth knowing. First, the trigger is a peak electric demand of 5 megawatts — a low threshold compared with the 20 to 50 megawatt lines other jurisdictions have drawn — and a facility that REFUSES TO DISCLOSE its power demand is covered too, so a developer cannot escape the moratorium by staying silent. Second, five existing operations are grandfathered by name: Bitdeer Tennessee, Infinity Data Center, Scipio Technologies, Tenhats Knoxville and Windstream Knoxville. Naming them removes the usual argument about who was operating when the ordinance passed. Facilities owned or operated by the State of Tennessee or by Knox County itself are also outside the moratorium, subject to conditions on leasing. Third — and this is the part most local moratoriums lack — existing data centers may not expand their power contracts or switch to alternative energy sources such as gas turbines in order to work around the limits. That closes the two most obvious routes to growing under a freeze. The City of Knoxville, a separate government inside the county, adopted its own one-year moratorium in July 2026; the Knoxville-Knox County Planning Commission then approved a recommended moratorium and zoning framework on August 13, 2026 for the County Commission to act on.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Howard County MD S.M.A.R.T. Siting Act data center moratorium (2026)

Howard County, MD · Effective June 1, 2026 · Howard Cnty., Md. Council Bill 31-2026 (S.M.A.R.T. Siting Act) (June 1, 2026)

Howard County unanimously passed Council Bill 31-2026 on June 1, 2026 — the S.M.A.R.T. Siting Act, where S.M.A.R.T. stands for Strategic Moratorium for Assessing Responsible Technology. It halts development of new data centers in Howard County through November 2, 2027, roughly a 17-month pause. The Act does not just stop development; it sets up the work that is meant to replace it, creating a SMART Data Center Task Force charged with defining and reviewing best practices for how data centers should be built and operated in the county and issuing a final report recommending siting and location standards. The county began seeking applicants for the task force in July 2026. Howard County sits between Baltimore and Washington along the I-95 corridor, and its action was part of a Maryland county wave through 2026 that also took in Montgomery, Prince George's, Baltimore City, Calvert and Queen Anne's.

Full entry · Agency page
Blocked / in litigation
Imperial County CA CEQA ruling, 330 MW data center EIR (2026)

Imperial County, CA · Imperial County Superior Court (Cal.) — tentative ruling requiring a full EIR for the Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing 330 MW data center (September 1, 2026) (Anderholt, J.)

Judge L. Brooks Anderholt of the Imperial County Superior Court issued a tentative ruling on September 1, 2026 holding that Imperial County must conduct a FULL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT under the California Environmental Quality Act before approving Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing LLC's 330-megawatt data center, on roughly 75 acres southeast of Aten Road and Clark Road. The ruling identifies two distinct failures. First, the county improperly treated its approvals as MINISTERIAL — meaning a rubber-stamp determination that the application met fixed standards, which under CEQA carries no environmental review obligation at all. The court held the approvals were not ministerial, which restores the review duty. Second, the county relied on a 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW that did not address the current proposal. Nine-year-old analysis of a different project cannot substitute for analysis of this one. The most useful part of the ruling is its treatment of scope. The court found the project encompasses INTEGRATED INFRASTRUCTURE that must be evaluated comprehensively rather than piecemeal: a 330 MW substation, an 862 MWh battery storage system, emergency generation comprising 132 NATURAL GAS GENERATORS, and water treatment facilities. Splitting a data center from its substation, its batteries and its generator farm — and reviewing each as if it were a separate small project — is the standard way large facilities avoid full environmental review, and this ruling forecloses it. The tentative decision prevents grading, construction and physical development from proceeding until proper review occurs. It is a tentative ruling, and no final judgment or appeal is reflected in the located source.

Full entry · News report
Proposed / pending
Jasper County SC data center moratorium and pending ordinance doctrine (2026)

Jasper County, SC · Jasper County, S.C. — first reading of a one-year data center moratorium, enacting a pending ordinance doctrine (2026)

Jasper County Council approved the FIRST READING of a one-year data center moratorium on a Tuesday night — and the same action ALSO ENACTED A PENDING ORDINANCE DOCTRINE. That second half is the part worth understanding, and it is the most sophisticated drafting move recorded anywhere in this dataset. A first reading is not an adoption. In South Carolina a county ordinance requires multiple readings over weeks, which leaves an obvious gap: a developer who learns a moratorium is coming can file an application in the interval and argue the pause cannot reach it. This dataset is full of moratoria defeated exactly that way. A PENDING ORDINANCE DOCTRINE closes that window by providing that applications filed after the ordinance was formally proposed are judged against the proposed rules rather than the existing ones. In other words, Jasper County made its moratorium effective against filings from the moment it was introduced, not from the moment it is finally adopted. Other jurisdictions have solved the same problem with brute speed — McDonald, Ohio passed an emergency ordinance in under five minutes; Hopkinton, Rhode Island adopted an emergency 60-day ban. Jasper County solved it with doctrine instead, which does not require an emergency and does not expire.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Levy County FL data center moratorium Ord. 2026-05 (2026)

Levy County, FL · Effective October 1, 2026 · Levy County, Fla. Ordinance 2026-05 (adopted September 8, 2026; effective October 1, 2026 through September 30, 2027)

Levy County commissioners approved Ordinance 2026-05 on September 8, 2026, temporarily halting the submission, acceptance, processing, review and approval of any application for a data center, large-scale data center, large load customer facility or associated facility. The pause takes effect October 1, 2026 — or whenever the ordinance is filed with the Florida Department of State, if that is later — and runs through September 30, 2027. During that year county staff will study the impacts of these facilities and draft permanent rules on where and how they may be built. The ordinance itself lists the concerns driving it: continuous electric demand, water and cooling systems, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure, backup generators, fuel and battery storage, fire protection and telecommunications infrastructure, plus noise, vibration, lighting, heat, construction traffic and added strain on roads, utilities and emergency services. Commissioners had signaled the moratorium in late June 2026 and residents had circulated a petition for a one-year pause. Levy was one of three Florida counties moving on one-year data center moratoriums at the same time.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Steuben County IN six-month data center moratorium (2026)

Steuben County, IN · Effective September 15, 2026 · Steuben County, Ind. — resolution enacting a six-month moratorium on data center construction, adopted September 15, 2026

The Steuben County Board of Commissioners formally enacted a six-month moratorium on data center construction on Tuesday, September 15, 2026, by a resolution adopting an August recommendation from the Steuben County Plan Commission. The pause gives local officials time to draft a permanent zoning ordinance governing where such facilities may go. The county framed this as defensive planning rather than opposition: officials said Steuben County is not completely closed to future technology business, but emphasised that the massive scale of these projects requires clear guardrails first. The urgency has a specific source. Utility companies are ACTIVELY DISCUSSING PLANS TO ROUTE HIGH-TRANSMISSION ELECTRIC LINES THROUGH STEUBEN COUNTY. Transmission capacity is what makes a county a data center target, so new lines are the leading indicator that developers will follow — and the county is moving to have rules written before that happens rather than after. Six months is a short pause by the standards of this dataset, where twelve and eighteen months are common; the drafting timetable is therefore tight and the likelihood of an extension request is real.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Marion County FL 12-month large data center moratorium (2026)

Marion County, FL · Effective September 15, 2026 · Marion County, Fla. — ordinance imposing a moratorium of up to 365 days on large-scale data center applications, adopted September 15, 2026

Marion County commissioners voted on Tuesday, September 15, 2026 to enact a 12-month temporary moratorium — up to 365 days — on accepting or processing applications for LARGE-SCALE data centers, carving out exemptions for smaller facilities. The pause covers all development permits, site plans, rezonings and conditional use permits related to major commercial data centers and artificial intelligence processing facilities. The vote is worth recording precisely because it happened twice: the motion carried 4-1 with Commissioner Kathy Bryant the lone no, and a subsequent procedural vote to adopt the ordinance passed unanimously 5-0. Bryant did not oppose the moratorium. She opposed the EXEMPTIONS. Her argument, which is the most valuable content here, is that the smaller facilities being let through are not small: 'A 49-megawatt facility is a 100,000 to 200,000-square-foot data center. That is the equivalent of 10,000 to 15,000 households.' A 49-megawatt project sits just under Florida's 50-megawatt state threshold, and Bryant's point is that a threshold set at 50 megawatts does not separate small from large — it separates regulated from unregulated while leaving something the size of a small city on the unregulated side. She also disputed developer representatives' claims that county staff can handle applications today: 'Our staff has explicitly stated on the record that they are not ready, they do not have the criteria, and they do not [have] all the right questions to ask yet.' Commissioner Matt McClain, supporting the pause, framed it the other way: 'I think the big concern is these really large hyperscale centers. I don't think it's the smaller ones, we can figure those out through the special use permit process.' He also noted the code will need continuous revision: 'It's not like we're going to be able to set this code once and then never touch it again.' Commissioners Craig Curry and Michelle Stone supported giving the community peace of mind while protecting the county's rural character, farmland and Outstanding Florida Springs — including Silver Springs and Rainbow Springs. 'We don't want to turn Marion County into Miami or New York,' Stone said.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Laurens County SC one-year data center moratorium (2026)

Laurens County, SC · Effective September 14, 2026 · Laurens Cnty., S.C. — One-Year Data Center Moratorium (Sept. 14, 2026)

Laurens County Council gave a one-year data center moratorium its third and final reading on September 14, 2026, approving it unanimously 6-0. The moratorium stops the county accepting, reviewing, approving or issuing permits for data center development. County officials were careful about the framing: the goal is not necessarily to keep data centers out, but to buy time to work out how they should be regulated, hearing from residents, planners and industry experts along the way. During the year the Laurens County Planning Commission and Council will evaluate regulations covering zoning districts, setbacks, buffering and landscaping, noise, water and wastewater, electrical infrastructure, emergency services, environmental impacts, traffic and decommissioning — an unusually complete list for a moratorium's study agenda. One limit matters: the moratorium applies only to unincorporated Laurens County. The cities of Laurens and Clinton keep control over data centers inside their own limits and are not covered. Laurens County is in the South Carolina upstate between Greenville and Columbia.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Putnam County FL data center moratorium (2026)

Putnam County, FL · Effective September 9, 2026 · Putnam County, Fla. — moratorium on medium and large scale data center projects (second reading approved September 8, 2026; runs to September 2027)

Putnam County commissioners unanimously approved the second reading of a temporary ban on medium and large scale data center projects on Tuesday, September 8, 2026. The ban runs until September 2027. One procedural detail is worth noticing: before voting, the commissioners established a definition for the covered sites. A moratorium on a use that the county code does not define is difficult to enforce, and Putnam County dealt with that first — a sequencing choice several other jurisdictions in this dataset skipped and had to revisit. Putnam acted the same week as Levy County, which adopted Ordinance 2026-05 on September 8 as well, and both sit within a broader Florida pattern that began in mid-2026: Sarasota County adopted a one-year hyperscale moratorium in July, DeSoto County moved toward one, and Lakeland approved a one-year moratorium on first reading on July 21, 2026. The precise definition Putnam adopted — the megawatt or square-footage line separating 'medium and large scale' from smaller facilities — was not published in the coverage located, and neither was a final-adoption confirmation, so this entry is recorded as enacted rather than effective and should be rechecked.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Lake County IL eight-month data center moratorium (2026)

Lake County, IL · Effective September 8, 2026 · Lake Cnty., Ill. — Eight-Month Data Center Moratorium (Sept. 8, 2026)

The Lake County Board voted unanimously on September 8, 2026 to put new data centers in unincorporated Lake County on hold for eight months. The moratorium lifts on May 11, 2027, or earlier if the county adopts data center regulations before then — the pause is tied to finishing the work, not just running out the clock. The county paired it with an immediate administrative deferral that can hold applications for up to 120 days, so the two instruments together reach close to a year of coverage without the board having to adopt a year-long moratorium outright. The sequence began on June 9, 2026, when the board approved a resolution sending draft changes to the Lake County Unified Development Ordinance to the Zoning Board of Appeals and proposing the eight-month pause; the ZBA unanimously recommended it on August 18. County leaders said the time is for planners to study long-term effects on electricity, water and roads as AI-ready campuses spread across Chicago's northern suburbs. Lake County sits between Chicago and the Wisconsin border.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Orangeburg County SC one-year data center moratorium (2026)

Orangeburg County, SC · Effective September 8, 2026 · Orangeburg County, S.C. — one-year data center moratorium (first reading July 23, 2026; third and final reading September 2026)

Orangeburg County Council passed a one-year moratorium on data center construction and development on third and final reading in early September 2026. Under it the county will not accept or act on new applications for data centers or other data processing facilities. The origin is worth recording because it shows how fast these measures now move: Councilwoman Latisha Walker learned that a company was interested in building a data center off Brentwood Drive, just outside downtown Orangeburg. No property had been purchased and no project had been officially announced. The council called a special meeting on July 23, 2026 and unanimously passed first reading of a moratorium — acting on interest alone, before an application existed. Council members said the intent was to pause the project while they gathered details on how it would affect the county before any final decisions were made. South Carolina county ordinances require three readings; this entry records the completed third reading, not the July first reading. Orangeburg is one of several South Carolina counties that enacted data center moratoriums during 2026.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Nash County NC countywide data center moratorium (2026)

Nash County, NC · Effective September 8, 2026 · Nash County, N.C. — countywide temporary moratorium on data center development (2026)

Nash County's commissioners approved a COUNTYWIDE moratorium on the development of data centers. The word countywide is worth pausing on, because in North Carolina it is not redundant. County zoning authority under Chapter 160D generally reaches unincorporated areas, while municipalities within the county zone their own territory and often an extraterritorial ring beyond it. A measure described as countywide raises the question of whether it reaches incorporated municipalities too — which a county ordinarily cannot do. Newport, elsewhere in this dataset, addressed the mirror-image problem from the municipal side by extending its moratorium across its extraterritorial jurisdiction, closing the gap that let a project in Athens simply sit outside the city limits. What Nash County's ordinance actually covers is not established here.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Mendocino County CA data center moratorium (Sept 2026)

Mendocino County, CA · Effective September 2, 2026 · Mendocino County Board of Supervisors urgency ordinance adopting temporary data center moratorium, September 2026; Mendocino Voice; Press Democrat

The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 to adopt an urgency ordinance placing a 45-day moratorium on all new data center proposals in unincorporated Mendocino County, effective immediately (~September 2, 2026) and running through approximately October 16, 2026. The county code did not previously define or regulate data centers, meaning a facility could be approved through a routine building permit with no public process. The moratorium buys time for the county to develop a proper permanent ordinance. A renewal hearing is expected at the October 6 board meeting, with supervisors expected to extend the pause for one to two years. Community concerns include air pollution, noise from diesel generators and cooling systems, and the potential to undo local progress on carbon-emission reductions.

Full entry · News report
127 more
Franklin County KS data center moratorium (2026) · Franklin County, KS · In effect
Calvert County MD six-month data center site plan moratorium (2026) · Calvert County, MD · In effect
Clark County IN one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Clark County, IN · In effect
Carlton County MN 1-year data center moratorium (2026) · Carlton County, MN · In effect
Durham County NC nine-month data center moratorium (2026) · Durham County, NC · In effect
Botetourt VA Google data center 2 MGD water cap (2026) · Botetourt County, VA · In effect
Jackson County NC one-year data center moratorium (2026-02) · Jackson County, NC · In effect
Tulare County CA data center moratorium (extended to Aug 2027) · Tulare County, CA · In effect
Oneida County WI one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Oneida County, WI · In effect
Anderson County SC six-month data center moratorium (2026) · Anderson County, SC · In effect
Amherst County VA data center zoning rules (2026) · Amherst County, VA · In effect
Alamance County NC one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Alamance County, NC · In effect
Yadkin County NC two-year data center moratorium (2026) · Yadkin County, NC · In effect
Mercer County KY one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Mercer County, KY · In effect
Warrick County IN 180-day data center moratorium (2026) · Warrick County, IN · In effect
Chippewa County WI 12-month data center moratorium (2026) · Chippewa County, WI · In effect
York School District SC AI Responsible Use policy (2026) · York County, SC · In effect
Wabash County IN data center moratorium (Ordinance 2026-85-08) · Wabash County, IN · In effect
Washington County IN 12-month data center moratorium (2026) · Washington County, IN · In effect
Carter County TN data center and crypto mining moratorium (2026) · Carter County, TN · In effect
Athens County OH township and county data center moratoria (2026) · Athens County, OH · In effect
Bannock County ID 180-day data center moratorium (2026) · Bannock County, ID · In effect
Brevard Public Schools FL AI policy 7540.08 (2026) · Brevard County, FL · In effect
Logan County KY 12-month data center moratorium (2026) · Logan County, KY · In effect
Wakulla County FL schools AI policy (2026) · Wakulla County, FL · In effect
Monroe County IN Flock contract termination (2026) · Monroe County, IN · In effect
Monroe County WI data center + battery storage moratorium (2026) · Monroe County, WI · In effect
Yankton County SD six-month data center moratorium (2026) · Yankton County, SD · In effect
Caroline County MD, Federalsburg and Ridgely data center moratoria (2026) · Caroline County, MD · In effect
Polk County WI one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Polk County, WI · In effect
Hamilton County TN 1-year data center moratorium (eff. July 15, 2026) · Hamilton County · In effect
Wasatch County UT AI use policy (Jul. 15, 2026) · Wasatch County, UT · In effect
Pine County MN 12-month data center moratorium (2026) · Pine County, MN · In effect
Two-year moratorium on data center construction and operatio · Bell County, Kentucky · In effect
Linn County IA 18-month data-center moratorium (2026) · Linn County, Iowa · In effect
Linn County IA EU-3 rezoning moratorium (2026) · Linn County, IA · In effect
Snohomish County WA six-month data center moratorium (2026) · Snohomish County, WA · In effect
La Crosse County WI 18-month data center moratorium (2026) · La Crosse County, WI · In effect
Chester County SC data center pause (2026) · Chester County, SC · In effect
Six-month data-center permit moratorium (Montgomery County, MD) · Montgomery County, Maryland · In effect
DeKalb County GA data-center moratorium (through Mar 30, 2027) · DeKalb County, Georgia · In effect
Madison County IN data center moratorium (2026) · Madison County, IN · In effect
Riley County KS 6-month data center moratorium (2026) · Riley County, KS · In effect
Simpson County KY data center CUP ordinance (2025/2026) · Simpson County, KY · In effect
Miami County IN data center moratorium (2026) · Miami County, IN · In effect
Champaign County IL one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Champaign County, IL · In effect
Grant County IN 24-month data center moratorium (2026) · Grant County, IN · In effect
Montgomery County PA Generative AI Governance Policy · Montgomery County, PA · In effect
Allen County IN County AI Use Policy · Allen County, IN · In effect
Sonoma County CA AI Use Guidelines for County Government · Sonoma County, CA · In effect
Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government AI Use Policy · Fayette County, KY · In effect
Williamson County TN Generative AI Use Policy · Williamson County, TN · In effect
Freeborn County MN data center moratorium extension (2026) · Freeborn County, MN · In effect
Lane County OR · Lane County, OR · In effect
City of Indianapolis & Marion County IN Generative AI Use Policy · Marion County, IN · In effect
San Mateo County CA AI Use & Governance Policy · San Mateo County, CA · In effect
Boulder County CO Generative AI Use Policy · Boulder County, CO · In effect
Montgomery County MD AI Governance Framework · Montgomery County, MD · In effect
Worcester County MD data center + cable landing moratorium (2026) · Worcester County, MD · In effect
Elmore County ID data center moratorium (2026) · Elmore County, ID · In effect
Woodford County IL six-month data center moratorium (2026) · Woodford County, IL · In effect
Palm Beach County FL one-year large data center moratorium (2026) · Palm Beach County, FL · In effect
Pinellas County FL large data center ban resolution (2026) · Pinellas County, FL · In effect
Anne Arundel County MD Bill 63-26 data center moratorium (proposed) · Anne Arundel County, MD · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Kershaw County SC one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Kershaw County, SC · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Cherokee County GA data center moratorium extended 180 days (2026–2027) · Cherokee County, GA · In effect
King County FR Ban · King County, WA · In effect
Santa Clara County Surveillance Ordinance · Santa Clara County, CA · In effect
Huntington County IN data center/BESS/carbon capture moratorium (2026) · Huntington County, IN · In effect
Marshall County IN Flock ALPR defund + cameras bagged (2026) · Marshall County, IN · In effect
Tucson Unified School District AI policy revisions (2026) · Tucson, AZ · In effect
Fairbanks North Star Borough data center moratorium request (2027 priorities) · Fairbanks North Star Borough, AK · In effect
Ashland County OH health department AI governance policy (2026) · Ashland County, OH · In effect
Shadowbox Studios v. DeKalb County GA — moratorium challenge (2026) · DeKalb County, GA · Proposed / pending
Washington County (MD) 12-month data center moratorium · Washington County, MD · In effect
Two-year moratorium on data centers, crypto mining, battery storage · Anderson County, Tennessee · In effect
One-year data-center moratorium in unincorporated Boone County · Boone County, Indiana · In effect
Six-month data-center moratorium (Cumberland County, NC) · Cumberland County, North Carolina · In effect
First data center zoning regulations · St. Charles Parish, LA · In effect
24-month moratorium on data center construction · Allen County, KY · In effect
12-month moratorium on data centers · Dubuque County, IA · In effect
Rockdale County data-center + BESS moratorium extended through Sept 8 · Rockdale County, Georgia · Expired
Calvert County data-center text amendments adopted May 5, 2026 · Calvert County, Maryland · Proposed / pending
Morgan County IL 6-month data center moratorium (2026) · Morgan County, IL · In effect
Temporary moratorium on data centers, nuclear and hydrogen f · Saline County, KS · In effect
Data center zoning ordinance for unincorporated Linn County · Linn County, IA · In effect
Newton County data-center application moratorium · Newton County, Georgia · Expired
Interim moratorium pausing data center applications · Sedgwick County, KS · In effect
Moratorium on data center construction in unincorporated Har · Harvey County, KS · In effect
Board Policy O-AIU and CMS Generative AI Guidance (2025-26) · Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, NC · In effect
MCSO AI-assisted body scanner deployment for jail contraband · Maricopa County, AZ (Maricopa County Sheriff's Office) · In effect
Ordinance outlawing algorithmic rent price fixing in unincor · King County, WA · In effect
District Policy 3750 - Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use · Washington County School District, UT · In effect
Board directive to develop comprehensive AI use guidelines ( · Miami-Dade County Public Schools, FL · In effect
Board Policy 2130 (Emerging Technologies) and HCPS Artificia · Hillsborough County Public Schools, FL · In effect
Johnson County Sheriff nationwide Flock ALPR search (abortio · Johnson County, TX (Johnson County Sheriff's Office) · In effect
BCPS AI Task Force resources and districtwide AI (Microsoft · Broward County Public Schools, FL · In effect
King County GenAI Guidelines · King County, WA · In effect
RTC of Southern Nevada Wide-Scale ZeroEyes AI Weapons-Detect · Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) · In effect
Montgomery County Police Department Drone as First Responder · Montgomery County, MD · In effect
Santa Cruz County AI Policy · Santa Cruz County, CA · In effect
Spokane County Real-Time Crime Center (RTCC) surveillance us · Spokane County, WA (Spokane County Sheriff's Office) · In effect
Central Bucks School District GoGuardian Beacon Student Moni · Central Bucks School District, PA · In effect
Ordinance prohibiting King County government and Sheriff use · King County, WA · In effect
King County Facial Recognition Technology Ban (Ordinance 202 · King County, WA (home to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport) · In effect
Orange County SD Policy Manual, Policy 308 - Unmanned Aerial · Orange County, CA (Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department) · In effect
Facial Recognition Policy (Riverside Cal-ID / RCSD) · Riverside County, CA (Riverside Cal-ID Biometric Identification Network / RCSD) · In effect
Suffolk County Jail AI inmate-call monitoring (LEO Technolog · Suffolk County, NY (Suffolk County Sheriff's Office) · In effect
Delta-CBP Biometric Boarding and Simplified Arrival at Detro · Wayne County Airport Authority / Delta (Detroit Metropolitan Airport) · In effect
PA Allegheny AFST · Allegheny County, PA · In effect
Santa Fe County 18-month data center moratorium · Santa Fe County · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Union County ordinance establishing a moratorium on data cen · Union County · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Yellowstone County data center construction voter-approval i · Yellowstone County · Proposed / pending
Morris County resolution urging state oversight of data cent · Morris County · Enacted (not yet in effect)
In re: Frederick Cnty. Data Center Referendum (No. 67, Sept. · Frederick County · Blocked / in litigation
Ordinance 2026-32 - 180-Day Moratorium on Data Center Develo · Cache County · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Tazewell County IL data center petition freeze (2026) · Tazewell County, IL · In effect
Bullitt County KY IT infrastructure moratorium (2026) · Bullitt County, KY · In effect
Cook County Jail AI-powered video surveillance system (Brief · Cook County, IL (Cook County Sheriff / Cook County Jail) · Proposed / pending
Santa Fe County Sheriff proposed Clearview AI facial recogni · Santa Fe County, NM (Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office) · Proposed / pending
Policy Code 1910 Generative Artificial Intelligence (draft) · Wake County Public School System, NC · Proposed / pending
Fort Bend ISD GoGuardian Web Content Filter and Student Moni · Fort Bend Independent School District, TX · Proposed / pending
Starke County IN Flock non-renewal (2026) · Starke County, IN · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Proposed one-year ban on AI data centers (Holmes County, FL) · Holmes County, Florida · Proposed / pending
Data center ZTA #25-187 (Charles County, MD) — Planning Commission recommended denial · Charles County, Maryland · Proposed / pending
Oconee County SC Protection from Mass Surveillance ordinance (pending) · Oconee County, SC · Proposed / pending
Cook County personal-info disclosure ban (proposed 2026) · Cook County, IL · Proposed / pending

City / local government use of AI rules (350)

In effect
Irwindale CA data center ban ordinance (2026)

Irwindale, CA · Effective September 16, 2026 · Irwindale, Cal. — zoning code ordinance prohibiting data centers, adopted unanimously September 16, 2026

Irwindale's City Council unanimously approved an ordinance banning data centers in the city on Wednesday, September 16, 2026, writing the prohibition into the zoning code. This is a PERMANENT BAN, not a temporary moratorium — an important distinction, because most of the local measures in this dataset are pauses of 45 days to 18 months while officials write rules. Irwindale decided not to write rules. The city's stated reasons, recorded when it recently updated its zoning code, were data centers' substantial and continuous electrical demand often supported by diesel or gas-powered backup generators, significant noise, significant water use for cooling systems, and the pressure such facilities create for related infrastructure and land-use changes. Mayor Manuel Ortiz framed the ordinance as compatible with growth: Irwindale should remain open to responsible economic development while carefully weighing the impact data centers would create. Irwindale joins a dense San Gabriel Valley cluster — El Monte and Monterey Park have both imposed bans or moratoriums. Two of those neighbours went further than an ordinance: Monterey Park and Alhambra approved BALLOT INITIATIVES putting the ban to voters, on the theory that a voter-enacted ban is harder to undo, since a future council can only overturn it with another ballot measure. Irwindale's mayor says the city has no plans for a ballot initiative, which means its ban rests on an ordinary council majority and a future council could repeal it.

Full entry · News report
In effect
McDonald OH one-year data center moratorium (2026)

McDonald, OH · Effective September 16, 2026 · McDonald, Ohio — emergency ordinance imposing a one-year data center moratorium, adopted September 16, 2026

McDonald's village council took less than five minutes at a special meeting on Wednesday, September 16, 2026 to approve an EMERGENCY ORDINANCE placing a one-year moratorium on data centers. The brevity is the story. Recent meetings on the subject had run two hours or more, and on the Tuesday before the vote residents stood outside McDonald High School holding signs against data centers as people filed into the gymnasium to meet representatives of the developer. By the time the council convened, the argument was over. The moratorium means the village will not ACCEPT, PROCESS OR CONSIDER any applications for any data centers in the village — all three verbs, which closes the routes a narrower pause leaves open. Adopting it as an EMERGENCY measure matters under Ohio law: an emergency ordinance takes effect immediately on passage rather than after the usual waiting period, and in Ohio it is also not subject to referendum. For a village facing an active developer courting residents in a school gymnasium, immediate effect is the whole point — a thirty-day delay is thirty days in which an application can be filed. Councilman Brian Bosheff was unable to attend. Council President Sean Schmidt said council and village officials will always do what is in the best interest of the village and its residents.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Cumberland RI data center zoning prohibition, Ordinance 26-22 (2026)

Cumberland, RI · Effective September 16, 2026 · Cumberland, R.I. — Ordinance 26-22 amending the zoning ordinance to list data centers as a prohibited use, adopted 6-1 on September 16, 2026

The Cumberland Town Council voted 6-1 on Wednesday, September 16, 2026 to amend the town's zoning ordinance so that DATA CENTERS ARE LISTED AS A PROHIBITED USE. This is a permanent prohibition written into the code, not a pause. Ordinance 26-22 was taken up for public hearing as old business and passed on a roll call vote; all seven council members were present. It had come out of the ordinance subcommittee's September 2 meeting with a favourable recommendation on a 2-1 vote. The sponsor, DISTRICT 4 COUNCILOR JODI SWEET, explained where the idea came from and it is an unusually candid account of how these ordinances propagate. She said it came to her AFTER WATCHING WHAT A NEIGHBOURING RHODE ISLAND TOWN WENT THROUGH when a data center sought to locate there. She then looked at what the state was doing and FOUND THAT MOST RELATED BILLS SAT IN COMMITTEE this legislative session — so the town acted because the state had not. Planning Director Amelia Morton and Town Director Romeo Mendes prepared a report with statistics attached to the ordinance. Sweet's figures, as she gave them: data centers have grown significantly larger since around 2023; a facility can use more energy in a day than an entire small city; ELECTRICITY PRICES IN VIRGINIA HAVE RISEN 267% OVER FIVE YEARS; and a large-scale data center can use as much water in a day as 16,000 HOUSEHOLDS — which she noted is CLOSE TO THE NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IN CUMBERLAND. She also cited Rhode Island receiving only 80% of normal rainfall from June 2025 to May 2026, and described an expanding data center in a Massachusetts city, currently 352,000 square feet and built next to a neighbourhood, where residents deal with noise and diesel fumes from 27 BACKUP GENERATORS. Sweet framed the ordinance as an attempt to ensure power companies, the state and tech corporations 'get themselves in order' before anyone tries to build in town — and added, candidly, that 'no law or ordinance is forever.' Four members of the public spoke, all in favour.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Lima OH 18-month data center + water service moratorium (2026)

Lima, OH · Effective September 14, 2026 · City of Lima, Ohio — 18-Month Data Center and Water Service Moratorium (Sept. 14, 2026)

Lima City Council passed an ordinance on September 14, 2026 enacting an 18-month moratorium with two distinct halves. The first is conventional: no data center construction in Lima. The second is not — the same ordinance also pauses new requests for city-supplied water to developments in outside municipalities. Lima sells water beyond its own borders, and a data center sited in a neighbouring jurisdiction where Lima has no zoning authority would still need that water. Pausing the service request is the only lever the city has over those projects, and it is the same move Lakeland, Florida made through its municipal electric utility six weeks earlier. Mayor Sharetta Smith framed the pause as prudence rather than opposition: Ohio has become one of the fastest-growing states for data center siting, state and federal rules around the facilities are changing, and the city wanted to evaluate its standards before making further large-scale commitments. The 18 months are for the administration to work out appropriate locations, water capacity, electric demand and other impacts. Lima is the seat of Allen County in northwest Ohio.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Edgewater FL AI data center ban (2026)

Edgewater, FL · Effective September 14, 2026 · City of Edgewater, Fla. — AI Data Center Ban (Sept. 14, 2026); Charter Amendment 4 (Nov. 2026 ballot)

Edgewater city leaders voted unanimously on September 14, 2026 to ban artificial intelligence data centers, a measure Mayor Diezel DePew described as permanent. It took effect immediately. The ordinance is explicitly a bridge: Charter Amendment 4 goes before Edgewater voters in November 2026 and would write the same prohibition into the city charter, putting it beyond the reach of a future council that might simply repeal an ordinance. Councilmember Eric Rainbird said the city wanted to act before any developer submitted a proposal — no AI data center has been proposed in Edgewater. The mayor had earlier warned about strain on water and power. Edgewater sits in Volusia County on Florida's east coast, and the county is now split in two directions on the same question: Volusia County directed staff to draft a six-month study moratorium while Edgewater inside it moved a permanent voter-ratified ban to the ballot. Edgewater joins other Central Florida communities including Titusville and Flagler County in acting to block AI data centers.

Full entry · News report
In effect
NYC schools generative AI moratorium through 8th grade (2026)

New York City, NY · Effective September 2, 2026 · New York City Public Schools — generative AI moratorium for grades 2-K through 8 (announced September 2, 2026, effective school year 2026-27)

On September 2, 2026 New York City announced a one-year ban on student use of generative artificial intelligence in its public schools from 2-K through eighth grade. It is the broadest generative AI moratorium adopted by any school system in the United States, and because New York City runs the country's largest school district it reaches roughly 600,000 students — about two-thirds of the district's enrollment. Student-facing AI tools and companion chatbots are prohibited for those grades while a coalition of educators, parents, experts and elected officials studies what the technology does to children and recommends what should happen next. The policy is not a blanket prohibition. There are carve-outs for students with disabilities and multilingual learners, and for settings such as career readiness programs and computer science. High school is treated differently again: public high schoolers will take two AI critical thinking classes during the 2026-27 school year, and a small number of high school classrooms will be allowed to use AI pilot platforms under a teacher's direct supervision. The same announcement set new limits on classroom screen time. The distinction worth holding onto is that the district paused AI use by young students while requiring older students to study AI — a restriction paired with a literacy requirement rather than a simple ban.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Valparaiso IN open-ended data center moratorium (2026)

Valparaiso, IN · Effective September 1, 2026 · City of Valparaiso, Ind. — data center moratorium with no fixed expiration date (2026)

Valparaiso City Council unanimously approved a moratorium on new data center development, effective immediately — and it carries NO FIXED EXPIRATION DATE. That is the distinguishing feature, and it is rare. Almost every local measure in this dataset states a term: forty-five days, six months, a year, eighteen months, three years. Valparaiso instead tied the moratorium's life to a DELIVERABLE: it holds new data center proposals while the city's Plan Commission reviews and recommends changes to Valparaiso's UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, and ends when that work is done. There is a real argument for structuring it this way. A fixed term creates a deadline the city may miss, after which either the pause lapses with no rules in place or the council must extend it — and extensions are where moratoriums run into their statutory ceilings, as officials in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Nevada have each said on the record elsewhere in this record. Tying the pause to completion of the ordinance removes that cliff. The corresponding risk is the mirror image: an open-ended pause with no external deadline has no forcing function, and it is precisely the shape a developer challenging a moratorium as indefinite or arbitrary would attack. Indiana's own practice matters here, and the located source does not address whether an open-ended municipal moratorium is sound under Indiana law. Valparaiso is in Porter County, which also contains Portage — whose Technology Campus district ordinance is the most numerically detailed instrument in this dataset.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Shawnee OK data center moratorium through 2027

Shawnee, OK · Effective September 1, 2026 · City of Shawnee, Okla. — temporary moratorium on new data centers, effective immediately through the end of 2027

The City of Shawnee approved a temporary moratorium on new data centers, putting new proposals on hold THROUGH THE END OF 2027. It takes effect immediately. The end date is what distinguishes it. Almost every moratorium in this dataset is expressed as a duration — forty-five days, six months, twelve months — which means it expires on a rolling date the public has to calculate. Shawnee instead fixed a CALENDAR ENDPOINT, which from a mid-2026 adoption is roughly sixteen months. A fixed endpoint is easier for residents and developers to hold in mind and harder for a city to let lapse unnoticed, and it aligns the pause with budget and legislative cycles rather than with the accident of when the vote happened. It also puts Shawnee near the long end of this dataset's distribution, past the twelve-to-eighteen-month window municipal officials in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Nevada have each described on the record as the practical or statutory limit. Oklahoma has been unusually active on data centers — the state enacted HB 2992 protecting ratepayers from large-load costs and SB 259 on groundwater, Oklahoma City adopted an emergency rezoning moratorium, Edmond a permit moratorium, Tulsa a moratorium that ran from March, and four tribal nations have acted, including a Cherokee Nation ban on hyperscale development.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Green Township OH moratorium on all new development (2026)

Green Township, OH · Effective September 1, 2026 · Green Township, Ohio — trustees' moratorium on all new development, adopted to prevent additional AI data center projects (2026)

Green Township's trustees passed a moratorium on ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT — not data centers specifically, but every kind of new development — expressly to prevent additional AI data center projects from starting in the township. This is the most sweeping instrument recorded anywhere in this dataset, and the reason it takes that form is almost certainly a limitation of Ohio township authority rather than a desire to halt all construction. Ohio townships have narrower zoning powers than municipalities, and a township without a data-center-specific definition in its resolution may have no clean way to single the use out. Halting everything reaches the target without needing a definition at all. That sidesteps the definitional problem this dataset records repeatedly — Poway trying to ban 'AI data centers' as a workload category, Marysville needing an enumerated list plus a server-room exclusion, a Port Angeles councilmember arguing the whole definitional exercise should be abandoned in favour of regulating impacts. It also carries an obvious cost that no other entry here carries: a blanket development moratorium stops housing, retail and every unrelated project too. Breadth is what makes it effective and also what makes it hardest to defend, since a measure justified by concern about one use but applied to all uses is exposed to the argument that it is not reasonably tailored to its purpose. No challenge is reported. Ohio is the most active state in the country on this question, with at least 138 municipalities and townships holding active data center moratoriums as of September 2026.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Stafford Township NJ total data center ban (Ord. 2026-22)

Stafford Township, NJ · Effective August 25, 2026 · Stafford Twp., N.J. Ordinance No. 2026-22 (Aug. 25, 2026) (supplementing Twp. Code § 212-4.1)

Stafford Township adopted Ordinance No. 2026-22 unanimously on August 25, 2026, banning data centers everywhere in the township. The operative language is about as short as a land-use prohibition gets: 'All data centers are hereby prohibited from operating anywhere in the Township of Stafford.' The ordinance supplements Section 212-4.1 of the township code, the section headed 'Additional Prohibited Uses,' and defines data centers as facilities used to store and manage digital data. There is no zone where they are allowed and no sunset date — this is a permanent, township-wide prohibition rather than a pause. Stafford was one of three New Jersey municipalities to ban data centers the same night, alongside North Brunswick and East Brunswick, making it the 37th in the state to do so. Stafford Township is in Ocean County on the Jersey Shore, adjoining Manahawkin and the Long Beach Island causeway.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Garfield Township MI data center and crypto mining ban (2026)

Garfield Township, MI · Effective August 25, 2026 · Charter Township of Garfield, Mich. — one-year ban on data centers and cryptocurrency mining adopted under a zoning ordinance amendment (August 25, 2026)

Garfield Township's board unanimously banned data centers and cryptocurrency mining facilities for one year on August 25, 2026, with an option to extend for six more months. Township Supervisor Joe McManus said the pause lets officials plan properly for future proposals and update the township's zoning ordinance. The procedural choice behind it is the reason this entry is worth reading. Rather than adopt a standalone moratorium ordinance or resolution — the route most townships take — Garfield's Planning Commission first recommended an amendment to the ZONING ORDINANCE itself that authorizes temporary bans, and the moratorium was then enacted under that authority. Township officials said plainly why: municipalities that imposed knee-jerk moratoriums without going through this process are being challenged in court and losing. In other words Garfield spent the extra procedural steps to buy defensibility, which is a distinction that matters a great deal when a developer sues. The practical effect is to stall a proposal by Illinois-based developer Tom Cervenka to repurpose a building on Cass Road as a small-scale data center. Garfield Township is in Grand Traverse County in northern Michigan, and its action came while Michigan legislators were still debating a statewide data center moratorium.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Chesapeake Beach MD townwide data center prohibition (2026)

Chesapeake Beach, MD · Effective August 20, 2026 · Town of Chesapeake Beach, Md. Ordinance O-26-14 (adopted August 20, 2026)

Data centers are no longer permitted anywhere in Chesapeake Beach. The Town Council approved ORDINANCE O-26-14 without opposition on August 20, 2026, after a public hearing, prohibiting the facilities in every town zoning district. The mechanism is worth understanding because it is cleaner than most prohibitions in this dataset. The ordinance does two things at once: it REMOVES data centers from the list of uses permitted in the town's Maritime Commercial zone — the only district where they had been allowed — and it ADDS them to the section of the land-use table covering EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED uses. Data centers were already not permitted in any of the town's other zoning districts. Deleting the one permission and simultaneously naming the use as expressly prohibited closes both halves of the question: a developer cannot argue the use is permitted somewhere, and cannot argue it is merely unaddressed and therefore allowable by analogy to a similar use. That second argument is the one that has caught out jurisdictions whose codes were simply silent — Clayton, Ohio adopted a moratorium precisely because its code had no definition and a data center could arguably enter as a warehouse. Chesapeake Beach is a small town on the Chesapeake Bay in Calvert County, Maryland, and this is a permanent prohibition rather than a pause.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Jersey City NJ data center ban in industrial zones (Ord. 26-057)

Jersey City, NJ · Effective August 19, 2026 · Jersey City, N.J. Ordinance 26-057 (Aug. 19, 2026)

The Jersey City Council voted unanimously on August 19, 2026 to bar new data centers from the city's industrial zones. Ordinance 26-057 amends the Land Development Ordinance to strike data centers and 'cyber hotels' from the list of permitted principal uses in the Industrial District. This is a permanent zoning change, not a temporary pause. It is also narrower than it first sounds: the city already has five data centers operating inside existing office buildings shared with other tenants, and those are untouched. What the ordinance stops is new standalone facilities taking industrial land. That framing is the point — Jersey City's industrial land is some of the last remaining in the city, and it had been open to a use that draws enormous electricity and water, occupies a large footprint and produces comparatively few permanent jobs. Jersey City is New Jersey's second-largest city and became the 34th municipality in the state to ban data centers; by that point more than a million New Jersey residents lived somewhere the facilities are prohibited.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Ypsilanti Township MI electric utility infrastructure moratorium (2026)

Ypsilanti Township, MI · Effective August 18, 2026 · Charter Township of Ypsilanti, Mich. — six-month land-use moratorium on major electric utility facilities (adopted August 18, 2026)

Ypsilanti Township's Board of Trustees unanimously approved a land-use moratorium on August 18, 2026 — and the thing it regulates is not data centers. It places a SIX-MONTH PAUSE on land use for the establishment or substantial expansion of a MAJOR ELECTRIC UTILITY FACILITY. That is a genuinely different instrument from everything else in this dataset, and it is the most transferable idea recovered in this triage. A hyperscale computing facility cannot run without dedicated high-capacity power, which in practice means a new on-site substation. A township that regulates the SUBSTATION reaches the project without ever having to define, classify or prohibit a 'data center' — and without the definitional fights that have forced other jurisdictions to amend their codes. The target here is specific. The University of Michigan had announced days earlier that it had selected a preferred location for what it describes as a computing research facility, on a Textile Road plot the university confirmed purchasing in March. The project includes a U-M academic research facility AND A CLASSIFIED RESEARCH FACILITY FOR LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY's work — and an electrical substation, which U-M said it would build with DTE Energy as a dedicated on-site facility. Township Supervisor Brenda Stumbo said the pause allows the township to evaluate and adopt ordinances regulating the kind of infrastructure required to power projects like it. The township is therefore asserting land-use authority over the power supply to a federal national-laboratory classified facility, which is an unusual posture worth watching.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Swatara Township PA data center ordinance (2026)

Swatara Township, PA · Effective August 17, 2026 · Swatara Township, Pa. — ordinance governing data centers and revising the residential forest district (adopted August 2026)

The Swatara Township Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted an ordinance at its regular monthly August 2026 meeting that revises the residential forest district and governs data centers. The data center provisions are among the more complete in this dataset, and they are specific enough to be usable. The ordinance ESTABLISHES DEFINITIONS for data centers and places them as an ALLOWED USE IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, with limitations including a 35-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT and a 300-FOOT SETBACK FROM RESIDENTIAL properties. Three submission requirements go further than most: the applicant must produce DOCUMENTATION FROM AN ELECTRIC SERVICE PROVIDER THAT WILL SERVE THE DATA CENTER, a TRAFFIC STUDY, and an EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN. The electric-service documentation is the notable one. It requires a developer to demonstrate that power is actually available and committed before the township approves anything — which addresses the problem several jurisdictions in this dataset have run into from the other end, where a facility is approved locally and the grid consequences surface afterwards. Fort Worth, Texas reached the same idea by a different route, requiring evidence of PUCT or ERCOT interconnection approval at multiple stages of development review. A 35-foot height cap is also notably low for an industrial use and would constrain building form considerably.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Hurlock MD three-year data center moratorium (2026)

Hurlock, MD · Effective August 10, 2026 · Hurlock, Md. — three-year moratorium on data centers (August 2026)

The Town of Hurlock approved a THREE-YEAR MORATORIUM on data centers at an August 2026 meeting. Three years places Hurlock among the longest local pauses recorded in this dataset — behind only Independence County, Arkansas at five years, and ahead of the two-year measures in Lawrence County, Illinois and elsewhere. For a town of Hurlock's size on Maryland's Eastern Shore, a three-year horizon is less an interim study period than a decision to keep the question closed for the foreseeable future. That is worth stating plainly rather than treating a three-year 'temporary' measure as equivalent to a six-month one. Hurlock sits in a notably active corner of Maryland. This dataset separately records Cambridge, also in Dorchester County, adopting a one-year moratorium in August, and Federalsburg described in reporting as the first Eastern Shore community to act. Prince George's County has a two-year moratorium indexed. Maryland is also the state whose Governor, Wes Moore, said in September 2026 that he would 'absolutely sign' a statewide data center moratorium if one reached his desk in 2027 — so the local measures are accumulating in a state where the executive has signalled he would ratify them at the state level.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Portage IN Technology Campus district data center rules (2026)

Portage, IN · Effective August 4, 2026 · City of Portage, Ind. — Technology Campus district zoning ordinance governing data centers (adopted August 4, 2026)

Portage City Council unanimously adopted a data center ordinance on August 4, 2026 that is the most numerically specific municipal instrument in this dataset. It creates a new zoning classification — the Technology Campus, or TC, district — and makes it the ONLY zoning code that can be applied to a data center project. A developer cannot site a data center anywhere else in Portage, full stop. Inside the TC district the numbers are these: noise may not exceed 55 DECIBELS; no structure may exceed 65 FEET in height; and a facility must sit at least 500 FEET back from a residential district, or 200 feet from other zoned properties. The council tightened two of those on the floor, cutting the noise limit from the 65 decibels originally proposed and the height from 75 feet — so the adopted rules are stricter than what the Planning Commission recommended. And for the largest facilities there is a second gate: a project meeting the HYPERSCALE definition — electrical load exceeding 50 megawatts OR a campus greater than 500,000 square feet — must obtain planned development approval within the TC district, which is a discretionary council decision rather than an administrative one. The TC district is described as established for technology-focused business, light manufacturing and data service usage. Portage is in Porter County in northwest Indiana, where nearly a third of Indiana counties had moved to restrict data centers by July 2026.

Full entry · News report
In effect
London KY two-year data center moratorium (2026-16)

London, KY · Effective August 3, 2026 · City of London, Ky. — Ordinance 2026-16 (Aug. 3, 2026)

The London City Council passed a two-year moratorium on new data centers inside city limits, approving the second reading of Ordinance 2026-16 on August 3, 2026 by a 5-1 vote. Councilman Bruner cast the lone no vote. The ordinance bars new data centers through September 30, 2028, and lets the London Planning Commission extend the pause by up to one additional year if it needs more time. City leaders said the point is to give officials room to study what data centers have actually done to communities across Kentucky and the country, including effects on infrastructure and local resources. At two years, this is one of the longest municipal data center moratoriums in Kentucky — most of the state's 2026 wave ran six months to a year. London is the seat of Laurel County in southeastern Kentucky.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Lakeland FL data center + 50MW load moratorium (Ord. 26-018)

Lakeland, FL · Effective August 3, 2026 · City of Lakeland, Fla. Ordinance 26-018 (Aug. 3, 2026)

Lakeland commissioners voted 4-3 on August 3, 2026 to impose a one-year moratorium on new data centers and on any other business expected to draw at least 50 megawatts of electricity. Two things make this ordinance unusual. First, it is not limited to data centers as a category — the trigger is the 50 MW load, so a large industrial customer of any description is caught by the same rule. Second, and more significant, it reaches beyond the city's borders. The moratorium applies both inside Lakeland and to projects located outside the city that seek service from Lakeland's utilities. That matters because nearly 70% of Lakeland Electric's service area lies outside the city limits, where Lakeland has no land-use authority at all but can still be asked to power a project. Using utility service as the hook lets the city reach developments it cannot zone. The pause took effect immediately, stopping the city from accepting or reviewing applications while staff write permanent rules covering power and water demand, noise, public safety, environmental effects, impacts on nearby properties, infrastructure costs, jobs and tax revenue. It can run up to twelve months but commissioners may end it sooner if the work finishes. The vote was contested: Commissioners Stephanie Madden, Mike Musick and Ashley Troutman were strongly opposed to the language and voted no.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Cary NC 18-month data center moratorium (2026)

Cary, NC · Effective August 1, 2026 · Town of Cary, N.C. — 18-month moratorium on all data center development (approved August 2026)

Cary Town Council unanimously approved an EIGHTEEN-MONTH moratorium on ALL data center development in August 2026. The length puts it among the longest local pauses in this dataset, and the town was specific about what the time is for: staff will study power demand and grid capacity, water consumption, noise and vibration effects, and site design and buffering, while engaging the community and coordinating with regional partners. Staff will give periodic progress updates to council, with a decision on a permanent ordinance expected in February. The carve-out is the part worth copying. The moratorium expressly excepts 'enterprise, small-scale, collocated data processing equipment, such as server rooms at offices or hospitals' DRAWING LESS THAN ONE MEGAWATT of demand. That is a cleanly drafted exclusion: it is defined by function and by a hard numerical threshold, so a hospital's server closet is unambiguously outside the moratorium while anything of real scale is inside. Several other jurisdictions in this dataset had to solve the same problem by describing the excluded use in words alone, which leaves argument room. Not everyone supported it — Cary resident Michael Morris, who works in IT, told council the town has been about growth for twenty years and the moratorium 'sends the wrong message,' while accepting that a data center should not go next to a supermarket. Cary is in Wake County, in the Research Triangle, where Durham County and the City of Durham also paused data centers in 2026.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Federalsburg MD three-year data center moratorium (2026)

Federalsburg, MD · Effective August 1, 2026 · Town of Federalsburg, Md. — three-year data center moratorium (August 2026)

Federalsburg council members passed a THREE-YEAR moratorium on data centers at their August 2026 meeting, and separate reporting describes the town as the first Eastern Shore community to go that far. Three years is at the outer edge of every local pause in this dataset. Only five Arkansas counties, the Town of Highlands in New York, and a reported five-year moratorium in Independence County, Arkansas match or exceed it — and it is two to three times the ceilings municipal officials have stated on the record elsewhere in this record. A Minnesota city development director told her council twelve months was that state's statutory maximum; a Wisconsin village administrator described twelve months plus a single six-month extension, adding that 'moratoriums are not meant to be a tool to prohibit something forever'; a Nevada city attorney assessed them as defensible for twelve to eighteen months before permanent code changes become necessary. Maryland municipal authority is not addressed in the located source and may be broader. The point is flagged rather than resolved, but it matters here more than usual: Federalsburg sits inside Caroline County, whose commissioners adopted a ONE-year moratorium for unincorporated areas on July 21, and alongside Ridgely, which adopted ONE year within its own limits. Three neighbouring governments reached terms differing by a factor of three for the same use in the same county within weeks — which suggests the term is being set by local appetite rather than by any shared reading of what the law permits.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Cherry Hill NJ data center prohibited-use ordinance (2026)

Cherry Hill, NJ · Effective July 28, 2026 · Cherry Hill Township, N.J. — zoning ordinance designating data centers a non-permitted use (adopted July 28, 2026)

Cherry Hill Township Council unanimously passed an ordinance on July 28, 2026 listing data centers as a non-permitted land use anywhere within the township. This is a permanent zoning prohibition, not a pause. The drafting detail that makes it workable is the carve-out: the ordinance distinguishes the now-forbidden data centers — facilities used for artificial intelligence or cloud storage — from the small server rooms a standalone business keeps for its own file storage, which remain permitted. Without that line a literal prohibition on 'data centers' would sweep in every dentist's office with a server closet. Because the use is simply not permitted, a developer who wanted to build one in future would need a use variance from the township zoning board, which is generally the hardest land-use approval to obtain in New Jersey. Mayor David Fleisher framed the decision as pre-emptive: 'We don't think that Cherry Hill should be a guinea pig… while the technology is evolving, we wanted to be proactive and make sure that we eliminated a problem before it became one.' Cherry Hill is one of a large group of South Jersey and statewide municipalities that formally banned large-scale data centers during 2026 — by late August more than fifty New Jersey towns had prohibited the use outright, the densest municipal ban wave in the country.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Hillsboro OR data center/battery storage moratorium (2026)

Hillsboro, OR · Effective July 27, 2026 · City of Hillsboro, Ore. — City Council special meeting action, 2026-07-27 (120-day moratorium)

The Hillsboro City Council voted at a special meeting Monday, July 27, 2026 to enact a 120-day moratorium blocking new or expanded data center and battery energy storage projects, running until at least November 24, 2026. The move follows concern over high electricity and water use, noise, tax incentives, and the limited number of jobs data centers create — and comes the same week local leaders, businesses, and farmers joined a separate lawsuit against the city and county over a series of enterprise-zone tax-break approvals for 17 proposed data-center projects.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Cottage Grove WI 18-month data center moratorium (2026)

Cottage Grove, WI · Effective July 20, 2026 · Village of Cottage Grove, Wis. — 18-month data center moratorium (adopted July 20, 2026)

The Village of Cottage Grove board unanimously passed an eighteen-month moratorium on new data center development on July 20, 2026 — one of the longest local pauses in this dataset. Board members said the point is to give the village time to gather information about data center impacts and develop best practices for regulating them, and also to give a new Dane County task force studying data centers, on which Cottage Grove has representation, time to produce guidance for municipalities. The reason the village needed its own moratorium at all is the useful part. Dane County had already passed a temporary pause on data centers, but that county pause DOES NOT APPLY to municipalities that have their own zoning codes — and Cottage Grove does. A county-level moratorium in Wisconsin, as in many states, reaches only the territory the county actually zones. Any reader assuming a county pause covers everything inside the county's boundaries would be wrong, and the gap is exactly where an incorporated village sits. Wisconsin had a wide moratorium wave in 2026: temporary bans were in effect in Green, Dodge, Door and Manitowoc counties, Madison had passed one, Chippewa County adopted a twelve-month pause in August and Eau Claire County began drafting in September. Democratic state lawmakers had proposed a statewide moratorium in February 2026.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Foster Twp PA data center zoning restriction (2026)

Foster Township, PA · Effective July 8, 2026 · Foster Township, Luzerne County, Pa. zoning ordinance amendment (adopted 2026-07-08); no ordinance number on the document

The amendment defines 'Data Center' — expressly including cryptocurrency mining, blockchain transaction processing and server farms — and 'Data Center Accessory Use', then sets the use table so data centers are NOT permitted in the B-2, B-3, A-1, C-1, I-1, I-2 and S-1 districts, and are allowed only as a conditional use in the AEO energy overlay district. New supplemental regulations impose a 2,000-foot setback from all property lines and from sensitive uses, a 40-foot height cap inclusive of roof-mounted equipment, a mandatory enclosing buffer, preliminary, interim and as-built acoustical studies enforcing a 65 dB(A) daytime limit, a vibration study, a water feasibility study with drawdown testing of wells within 3,000 feet and DRBC approval where thresholds are met, DEP/SEO wastewater approval, electric-provider capacity certification, NFPA 30/70/75/76/110/855 compliance, a fire-department-accepted Emergency Response Plan with applicant-funded municipal cost mitigation, and a decommissioning plan backed by bond or escrow reviewed bi-annually.

Full entry · Statute
In effect
Knoxville TN one-year large data center moratorium (2026)

Knoxville, TN · Effective July 7, 2026 · City of Knoxville, Tenn. — emergency ordinance imposing a one-year data center moratorium (adopted July 7, 2026; expires July 7, 2027)

Knoxville City Council unanimously passed an emergency ordinance on July 7, 2026 imposing a one-year moratorium on the permitting, construction or development of large data centers requiring ten megawatts or more of power within the city. It took effect immediately — that is what the emergency designation does — and runs through July 7, 2027. The ordinance's recitals are unusually explicit about why, and they go well beyond the usual electricity-and-water framing. They cite the sheer size of some data centers, their effects on neighborhoods, the demand they place on energy and water, Knoxville's own greenhouse gas emission reduction goals, and the fact that data centers often provide few jobs in the community. That last point is worth noting: the jobs-versus-burden trade is the argument developers usually make to a city, and Knoxville wrote its skepticism of that trade into the instrument. The Mayor framed the pause as protecting clean air and clean water. Knoxville acted two weeks after Knox County, the surrounding county government, adopted its own one-year moratorium on June 23, 2026 at a lower 5 MW threshold — two separate governments, two separate measures, two different trigger levels covering overlapping ground.

Full entry · Agency page
In effect
Urbana IL surveillance technology oversight ordinance (2026)

Urbana, IL · Effective July 3, 2026 · City of Urbana, Ill. — Surveillance Technology Oversight Ordinance (July 3, 2026)

Urbana adopted a surveillance technology oversight ordinance on July 3, 2026 by a 6-1 vote, after nearly 19 months of discussion and an earlier tabling. It governs how city departments may buy and use surveillance technology and databases that monitor, track or identify individuals or groups. The provision that gives it real force is that council approval is required not only for new surveillance technologies but for those already in use — most ordinances of this type grandfather existing deployments, which is how a city ends up with oversight that never reaches the tools it actually operates. Before any technology can be adopted, the department must publicly explain what it is, why it is needed, how much it will cost, and how it could affect residents' privacy and civil liberties. The scope is broad: police drones, facial recognition software, gunshot detection systems, social media monitoring software, and privately owned security cameras such as Ring doorbells where the city can access them remotely. Vehicle and body cameras are exempt. Ward 3 Alderwoman Shirese Hursey cast the lone no vote. Urbana sits beside Champaign in central Illinois and is home to the University of Illinois.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Holyoke MA AI data center ban (2026)

Holyoke, MA · Effective June 17, 2026 · City of Holyoke, Mass. — Zoning Ordinance amendment banning data centers (June 2026)

Holyoke became the first community in Massachusetts to ban AI data centers. The City Council voted 9-4 in June 2026 to amend the city's zoning ordinance, adding a definition of 'Data Center' and providing that the use is not allowed anywhere in the city; Mayor Joshua Garcia signed it the following day. The prohibition reaches AI data center development above 12 megawatts. What makes the ordinance interesting is the carve-out. Holyoke is home to the Massachusetts Green High Performance Computing Center, founded more than a decade ago by a consortium of universities for scientific research and running almost entirely on carbon-free power. Rather than ban the category and force an awkward conflict with a facility the city values, the ordinance lets that center continue operating under the same 12-megawatt cap. So the measure is not opposition to computing infrastructure as such — it distinguishes between a research facility on clean power at modest scale and speculative hyperscale AI development, and permits only the former. Holyoke's own electricity comes largely from municipal hydropower, which is part of why the city attracted the computing center in the first place.

Full entry · News report
In effect
Portland OR Twin FR Bans (2020, broadest-in-nation)

Portland, OR · Effective January 1, 2021 · Portland City Code Ch. 34.10 (private-sector); Council Action Sept. 9, 2020

On September 9, 2020, Portland, Oregon became the first U.S. city to ban both government AND private-sector use of facial recognition in places of public accommodation. The private-sector ban — codified at Portland City Code Ch. 34.10 — included a private right of action and remains the broadest municipal FR ban in the United States.

Full entry · Statute
In effect
Berkeley Government FR Ban (2019)

Berkeley, CA · Effective November 14, 2019 · Berkeley Mun. Code Ch. 2.99 (Ord. 7,676-N.S., 2019)

On October 15, 2019, Berkeley enacted Ordinance 7,676-N.S., prohibiting the City Manager and any city agent from obtaining, retaining, accessing, or using facial recognition technology — making Berkeley the fourth U.S. city to ban government FR. Codified at Berkeley Mun. Code Ch. 2.99. Still in effect 2026.

Full entry · Statute
320 more
Oakland Government FR Ban (2019) · Oakland, CA · In effect
SF Stop Secret Surveillance Ordinance (2019, first-in-nation) · San Francisco, CA · In effect
Somerville Face Surveillance Ban (2019, first East Coast) · Somerville, MA · In effect
Ottawa KS proposed data center ban ballot initiative (2026) · Ottawa, KS · Proposed / pending
Village of Horseheads NY data center moratorium (2026) · Village of Horseheads, NY · In effect
Berkeley Heights NJ data center ban (2026) · Berkeley Heights, NJ · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Hardyston NJ data center ban (2026) · Hardyston Township, NJ · Enacted (not yet in effect)
East Brunswick NJ data center zoning ban (Ord. 26-21) · East Brunswick, NJ · In effect
St. Louis MO data center zoning and tax incentive ban (2026) · St. Louis, MO · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Oakland Surveillance Ordinance & FR Ban · Oakland, CA · In effect
Portland (Maine) Facial Surveillance Ban · Portland, ME · In effect
Oakland CA 45-day data center moratorium (Oct. 2026) · Oakland, CA · In effect
South Windsor CT ends Flock ALPR contract (2026) · South Windsor, CT · In effect
Leominster MA data center + battery storage moratoriums (2026) · Leominster, MA · In effect
St. Bernard OH 12-month data center moratorium (2026) · St. Bernard, OH · In effect
Salem OR 120-day data center moratorium (Res. 2026-40) · Salem, OR · In effect
Newport NC data center moratorium (2026) · Newport, NC · In effect
Gary IN mayoral executive order data center moratorium (2026) · Gary, IN · In effect
Arcata CA 45-day data center moratorium (2026) · Arcata, CA · In effect
Richmond CA 45-day data center moratorium (2026) · Richmond, CA · In effect
Loveland CO 12-month data center moratorium (2026) · Loveland, CO · In effect
Marina CA 45-day data center moratorium (2026) · Marina, CA · In effect
West Mahanoy Township PA curative amendment, data centers and solar (2026) · West Mahanoy Township, PA · In effect
Statesville NC 180-day data center moratorium (2026) · Statesville, NC · In effect
Gilroy CA interim urgency data center moratorium (2026) · Gilroy, CA · In effect
Woodburn OR 120-day data center moratorium (2026) · Woodburn, OR · In effect
Bemidji MN one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Bemidji, MN · In effect
Lower Mount Bethel Township PA data center ordinance (2026) · Lower Mount Bethel Township, PA · In effect
Marysville KS 12-month data center moratorium (2026) · Marysville, KS · In effect
Dixfield ME 180-day data center moratorium, town meeting vote (2026) · Dixfield, ME · In effect
Sanibel FL ALPR data-sharing ban and search restrictions (2026) · Sanibel, FL · In effect
Southport NC 15-month data center moratorium (2026) · Southport, NC · In effect
Warren OH one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Warren, OH · In effect
Elma WA temporary ALPR moratorium (2026) · Elma, WA · In effect
Clearfield UT data center moratorium (2026) · Clearfield, UT · In effect
Winchester KY one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Winchester, KY · In effect
LAUSD student generative AI moratorium (2026) · Los Angeles, CA · In effect
Eureka CA data center moratorium and 20,000 sq ft cap direction (2026) · Eureka, CA · In effect
Miamisburg OH nine-month data center moratorium (2026) · Miamisburg, OH · In effect
Salida CO 12-month data center moratorium Ord. 2026-19 · Salida, CO · In effect
Cambridge MN one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Cambridge, MN · In effect
Montgomery Township PA data center curative regulations (2026) · Montgomery Township, PA · In effect
Murray KY data center regulations (2026) · Murray, KY · In effect
Escondido CA 45-day data center moratorium (2026) · Escondido, CA · In effect
Elkhart IN data center and battery storage moratorium (2026) · Elkhart, IN · In effect
Palm Springs Data Center Moratorium (2026) · Palm Springs, CA · In effect
Lake Elsinore CA 45-day data center moratorium (2026) · Lake Elsinore, CA · Expired
Ligonier Township PA data center zoning regulations (2026) · Ligonier Township, PA · In effect
Camden NY local data center moratorium (2026) · Camden, NY · In effect
Fairfield IA data center development pause ordinance (2026) · Fairfield, IA · In effect
Patterson CA data center moratorium extension Ord. 890 (2026) · Patterson, CA · In effect
Greensboro NC 180-day data center moratorium (2026) · Greensboro, NC · In effect
Virginia Beach 12-month data center moratorium (2026) · Virginia Beach, VA · In effect
Chesapeake VA data center zoning ordinance (2026) · Chesapeake, VA · In effect
Norristown PA data center ordinance (2026) · Norristown, PA · In effect
Marshall MI one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Marshall, MI · In effect
Renton WA one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Renton, WA · In effect
Louisville Metro six-month data center moratorium (O-135-26) · Louisville, KY · In effect
La Crosse WI city 18-month data center moratorium (2026) · La Crosse, WI · In effect
Bellevue WI 12-month data center moratorium (2026) · Bellevue, WI · In effect
Eastport ME 180-day underwater data center moratorium (2026) · Eastport, ME · In effect
Waxhaw NC 12-month data center moratorium (ORD2026014) · Waxhaw, NC · In effect
Commerce CA 45-day data center urgency ordinance (2026) · Commerce, CA · Expired
Chicago data center executive order (2026) · Chicago, IL · In effect
Pinellas Park FL one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Pinellas Park, FL · In effect
Pere Marquette Township MI data center moratorium (2026) · Pere Marquette Township, MI · In effect
Nicholasville KY six-month data center moratorium (2026) · Nicholasville, KY · In effect
Jeffersonville IN one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Jeffersonville, IN · In effect
Falls Township PA curative amendment on data centers (2026) · Falls Township, PA · In effect
Town of Tonawanda NY data center moratorium LL 2-2026 · Town of Tonawanda, NY · In effect
Corunna MI data center zoning ordinance (2026) · Corunna, MI · In effect
Farmville NC 12-month data center moratorium (2026) · Farmville, NC · In effect
Athens OH data center moratorium Ord. 70-26 (2026) · Athens, OH · In effect
Town of Janesville WI data center moratorium (2026) · Town of Janesville, WI · In effect
Auburn NY one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Auburn, NY · In effect
Cle Elum WA Data Center Moratorium (2026) · Cle Elum, WA · In effect
Amherst OH Nordson campus data center variance denial (2026) · Amherst, OH · In effect
La Conner WA data center moratorium (2026) · La Conner, WA · In effect
Toccoa GA data center moratorium (2026) · Toccoa, GA · In effect
Clearcreek Township OH one-year data center permit moratorium (2026) · Clearcreek Township, OH · In effect
Otsego MN one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Otsego, MN · In effect
Canton OH data center zoning chapter (2026) · Canton, OH · In effect
North Richland Hills TX data center SUP regulations (2026) · North Richland Hills, TX · In effect
Westerly RI one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Westerly, RI · In effect
Ludlow KY one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Ludlow, KY · In effect
Palo IA EU-1 Data Center District (2026) · Palo, IA · In effect
Chamblee GA data center moratorium (2026) · Chamblee, GA · In effect
Ellsworth WI temporary data center ordinance (2026) · Ellsworth, WI · In effect
Warner Robins GA six-month data center moratorium (2026) · Warner Robins, GA · In effect
Clayton OH 365-day data center moratorium (2026) · Clayton, OH · In effect
Panama City and Bay County FL data center moratoria (2026) · Panama City, FL · In effect
Watchung Hills NJ AI policy 2365 (2026) · Watchung Hills Regional High School District, NJ · In effect
Federal Way WA Data Center Moratorium (2026) · Federal Way, WA · In effect
Windsor CT ends Flock ALPR contract (2026) · Windsor, CT · In effect
Topeka KS 1-year data center moratorium + utility restriction (2026) · Topeka, KS · In effect
Chewelah WA emergency data center moratorium (2026) · Chewelah, WA · In effect
Carbondale IL one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Carbondale, IL · In effect
One-year citywide data-center moratorium (Spokane) · Spokane · In effect
Holly Springs NC 12-month data center moratorium (2026) · Holly Springs, NC · In effect
Broken Arrow OK data center moratorium (2026) · Broken Arrow, OK · In effect
Bourbonnais IL data center moratorium to Jan. 31, 2027 · Bourbonnais, IL · In effect
South Portland ME ends Flock ALPR program (2026) · South Portland, ME · In effect
Grove City OH 1-year data center moratorium (2026) · Grove City, OH · In effect
Merrillville IN one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Merrillville, IN · In effect
Ravenna OH one-year data center moratorium (2026) · Ravenna, OH · In effect
Berkeley CA "The Berkeley Rule" AI Policy (2026) · Berkeley, CA · In effect
Lowell MA 360-day data center moratorium (2026) · Lowell, MA · In effect
Portland OR GenAI Policy · Portland, OR · In effect
Rochester Hills MI data center moratorium extended (2026) · Rochester Hills, MI · In effect
NYC GUARD Act (Gov't AI Accountability) · New York City, NY · In effect
DC AI Training Mandate · Washington, DC · In effect
Oakland GenAI Policy · Oakland, CA · In effect
Philadelphia Bill 240823 — Algorithmic Rent-Fixing Ban · Philadelphia, PA · In effect
Phoenix GenAI AUP · Phoenix, AZ · In effect
DC AI Values Mayor's Order · Washington, DC · In effect
San Jose AI Reviews Board · San Jose, CA · In effect
Boston Interim GenAI Guidelines · Boston, MA · In effect
St. Louis Surveillance Technology CCOPS Ordinance · St. Louis, MO · In effect
Yellow Springs Use of Surveillance Technology (Codified Ord. Ch. 607) · Yellow Springs, OH · In effect
NYC EO 3 / Citywide AI Policy · New York City, NY · In effect
NYC Algorithmic Tools Reporting (LL35) · New York City, NY · In effect
Worcester Ordinance Banning Face Surveillance Technology · Worcester, MA · In effect
Bellingham Initiative 2 · Bellingham, WA · In effect
Palo Alto Surveillance Technology Ordinance · Palo Alto, CA · In effect
Syracuse Surveillance Policy · Syracuse, NY · In effect
Pittsburgh Regulation of Facial Recognition and Predictive Policing Technologies · Pittsburgh, PA · In effect
Eugene Surveillance Technology Ordinance · Eugene, OR · In effect
Portland City-Government FR Ban · Portland, OR · In effect
Jackson MS Face Surveillance Prohibition · Jackson, MS · In effect
Easthampton Face Surveillance Ban · Easthampton, MA · In effect
Boston Face Surveillance Ban · Boston, MA · In effect
Santa Cruz Surveillance Technology and Community Safety Ordinance · Santa Cruz, CA · In effect
Springfield Face Surveillance Ban / Moratorium · Springfield, MA · In effect
Northampton Face Surveillance Ban · Northampton, MA · In effect
Alameda Surveillance and Community Safety Ordinance · Alameda, CA · In effect
Lawrence Surveillance Oversight Ordinance (CCOPS) · Lawrence, MA · In effect
Davis Surveillance Technology Ordinance (Art. 26.07) · Davis, CA · In effect
SF delivery-robot permit (2017) · San Francisco · In effect
Seattle Surveillance Ordinance · Seattle, WA · In effect
Seattle Surveillance Ordinance (SMC 14.18) · Seattle, WA · In effect
Nashville Surveillance Equipment Council-Approval Ordinance (Metro Code 13.08.080) · Nashville, TN · In effect
Akron OH data center review process (2026) · Akron, OH · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Twinsburg OH 12-month data center moratorium (2026-065) · Twinsburg, OH · In effect
Grand Rapids MI ALPR under surveillance policy (2026) · Grand Rapids, MI · In effect
Port Angeles WA six-month data center moratorium (2026) · Port Angeles, WA · In effect
North Port FL 18-month data center moratorium (2026) · North Port, FL · In effect
Mattoon IL self-renewing data center moratorium (2026) · Mattoon, IL · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Pontiac MI data center moratorium (2026) · Pontiac, MI · In effect
Port Huron Township data center moratorium (Ord. 257) · Port Huron Township, MI · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Portage MI data center and BESS moratorium (2026) · Portage, MI · In effect
North Mankato MN 12-month data center moratorium (2026) · North Mankato, MN · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Janesville WI city 12-month data center moratorium (2026) · Janesville, WI · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Lochbuie CO data center moratorium (2026) · Lochbuie, CO · In effect
Cambridge Surveillance Ordinance & FR Ban · Cambridge, MA · In effect
Brookline Face Surveillance Ban · Brookline, MA · In effect
Minneapolis FR Ban · Minneapolis, MN · In effect
Madison Face Surveillance Ban · Madison, WI · In effect
Chesterton IN ends Flock ALPR contract (Sept. 2026) · Chesterton, IN · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Milford CT Flock camera moratorium (2026) · Milford, CT · In effect
Ledyard CT ends Flock ALPR use (2026) · Ledyard, CT · In effect
Portland OR data center NDA resolution (2026) · Portland, OR · In effect
Forest Park GA 90-day data center moratorium (2026) · Forest Park, GA · In effect
Ocean City MD first municipal AI policy (2026) · Ocean City, MD · In effect
Fort Wayne IN rejects Flock ALPR contract (Aug. 25, 2026) · Fort Wayne, IN · In effect
Newtown CT ALPR pause (2026) · Newtown, CT · In effect
Rockford IL six-month data center moratorium (2026) · Rockford, IL · In effect
Cle Elum WA emergency data center moratorium (2026) · Cle Elum, WA · In effect
Ralston NE school board staff AI use policy (2026) · Ralston Public Schools, NE · In effect
Killingworth CT ends Flock ALPR contract (2026) · Killingworth, CT · In effect
Onalaska WI AI policy 7540.08 revision (2026) · School District of Onalaska, WI · In effect
Columbus IN city data center BZA oversight ordinance (2026) · Columbus, IN · In effect
Springfield IL Flock ALPR renewal w/ safeguards (Jul. 7, 2026) · Springfield, IL · In effect
Paris TN temporary data center moratorium (2026) · Paris, TN · In effect
120-day moratorium on new data center applications · Springfield, Missouri · In effect
Inver Grove Heights MN data center moratorium amended under lawsuit (2026) · Inver Grove Heights · In effect
San Marcos citywide data center ban (Land Use Matrix amendme · San Marcos · In effect
Milton GA 30-day data-center moratorium (June 2026) · Milton, Georgia · In effect
Emergency 365-day moratorium on new data centers (>20 MVA) · Seattle · In effect
Resolution setting Seattle data-center impact-study framework · Seattle · In effect
Moratorium on data center permits, development plans and zon · Lexington-Fayette Urban County, KY · In effect
El Cerrito CA Flock non-renewal (May 5, 2026) · El Cerrito, CA · In effect
Six-month moratorium on data centers >350,000 sq ft (Minneapolis) · Minneapolis · In effect
Metro Nashville Police Drones as First Responder Trial Progr · Nashville, TN (Metro Nashville Police Department) · In effect
Indianapolis-Marion County data-center pause resolution · Indianapolis/Marion County · In effect
One-year moratorium on data center development · Cave City, KY · In effect
Austin Transparent and Responsible Use of Surveillance Techn · Austin, TX · In effect
OKC emergency data-center moratorium through end of 2026 · Oklahoma City · In effect
Tampa Police Department Drone as First Responder Program · Tampa, FL · In effect
Orlando Police Department Drone as First Responder Program ( · Orlando, FL · In effect
Milwaukee Police Department self-imposed moratorium on facia · Milwaukee, WI · In effect
Data center moratorium (4 months with extension option) · Lenox Township, MI · In effect
Temporary moratorium on new data centers · New Orleans, LA · In effect
Generative and Agentic AI in SFUSD (staff guidance) · San Francisco Unified School District, CA · In effect
Police surveillance technology ordinance requiring annual pu · Columbia, MO · In effect
Cambridge terminates Flock Safety ALPR contract for 'materia · Cambridge, MA · In effect
San Marcos City Council votes to discontinue Flock Safety AL · San Marcos, TX · In effect
180-day data center moratorium · Springfield Township, MI · In effect
Ordinance 192122 - Prohibition of anti-competitive algorithm · Portland, OR · In effect
Evanston deactivates 19 ALPR cameras and terminates Flock Sa · Evanston, IL · In effect
CTA ZeroEyes AI Gun-Detection Contract Expansion (250 to 1,5 · Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) · In effect
Council Bill 121000 - Ban on algorithmic rent fixing (SMC 7. · Seattle, WA · In effect
Resolution to expand surveillance cameras in public parks (o · City and County of Honolulu, HI · In effect
Ordinance prohibiting price-fixing rental algorithms · Providence, RI · In effect
Ordinance banning algorithmic rent-setting software · Jersey City, NJ · In effect
Austin AI Governance Resolution (2025) · Austin, TX · In effect
Ordinance prohibiting use of algorithmic rent-setting device · Berkeley, CA · Proposed / pending
Eureka CA rejects Flock ALPR contract (Feb. 2025) · Eureka, CA · In effect
Houston ISD Generative AI Guidebook · Houston Independent School District, TX · In effect
Ordinance prohibiting sale or use of algorithmic devices to · San Francisco, CA · In effect
Real-Time Crime Center Surveillance Impact Report and Crime · Seattle, WA · In effect
Hialeah GenAI Policy · Hialeah, FL · In effect
Policy 5110 - CCSD Policy on Generative Artificial Intellige · Chappaqua Central School District, NY · In effect
Tulsa GenAI Policy · Tulsa, OK · In effect
Birmingham AL GenAI Policy · Birmingham, AL · In effect
CPS AI Guidebook (generative AI guidance for students, staff · Chicago Public Schools, IL · In effect
Vancouver Public Schools Gaggle Safety Management Student Mo · Vancouver Public Schools, WA · In effect
Detroit FR Policy Directive 307.5 · Detroit, MI · In effect
San Diego GenAI Policy · San Diego, CA · In effect
Metro Nashville GenAI Policy · Nashville, TN · In effect
Arlington TX GenAI Policy · Arlington, TX · In effect
Louisville Metro GenAI Policy · Louisville, KY · In effect
SLC GenAI Policy · Salt Lake City, UT · In effect
St. Louis GenAI Policy · St. Louis, MO · In effect
MPD Unmanned Aircraft Systems Program (General Order 803.09) · Washington, DC (Metropolitan Police Department) · In effect
SFPD Unmanned Aircraft System (Drone) Program authorized und · San Francisco, CA · In effect
Fort Worth GenAI Policy · Fort Worth, TX · In effect
San Antonio GenAI Pilot Governance · San Antonio, TX · In effect
Providence Police Department General Order 460.01 - Unmanned · Providence, RI · In effect
NYC LL 60 (delivery robots) · New York City · In effect
SF Generative AI Guidelines · San Francisco, CA · In effect
Seattle Generative AI Policy · Seattle, WA · In effect
San Jose GenAI Guidelines · San Jose, CA · In effect
Peninsula School District AI Guidance (Principles and Belief · Peninsula School District, WA · In effect
Boston GenAI Guidelines · Boston, MA · In effect
Ordinance Restricting Municipal Use of Facial Recognition Te · Anchorage, AK · In effect
Portland Police Bureau Small UAS (Drone) Program authorized · Portland, OR · In effect
Privacy Protection and Technology Transparency Policy govern · Chula Vista, CA · In effect
Cheyenne Mountain SD 12 Verkada AI Facial-Recognition Camera · Cheyenne Mountain School District 12, CO · In effect
Ordinance on Surveillance Oversight and Information Sharing · Boston, MA · In effect
Ordinance banning city and police department use of facial r · Minneapolis, MN · In effect
LAPD Facial Recognition Policy · Los Angeles, CA · In effect
New York Biometric Surveillance in Schools Moratorium (halti · Lockport City School District, NY · In effect
Surveillance Technology and Data Protection ordinance bannin · New Orleans, LA · In effect
Oakland City Council Drone Use Policy plus expanded biometri · Oakland, CA · In effect
Amendments to the Surveillance and Community Safety (CCOPS) · Oakland, CA · In effect
Ordinance ORD-20-00056 prohibiting city-agency use of facial · Madison, WI · In effect
Ordinance requiring City Council approval before police use · Pittsburgh, PA · In effect
Ordinance banning use of face recognition technologies by Ci · Portland, OR · In effect
Portland Municipal Facial Recognition Ban (implicating the P · Portland, ME · In effect
NYPD POST Act · New York City, NY · In effect
Ordinance banning face surveillance technology in Boston · Boston, MA · In effect
Ordinance banning municipal use of predictive policing and f · Santa Cruz, CA · In effect
Five-year moratorium on police and municipal use of face sur · Springfield, MA · In effect
Ordinance banning municipal use of face surveillance technol · Cambridge, MA · In effect
Use of Surveillance Technology Ordinance (Ordinance 59300; M · Madison, WI · In effect
Amendment to Surveillance and Community Safety Ordinance (Mu · Oakland, CA · In effect
Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance · Somerville, MA · In effect
Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance prohibiting municipal u · Somerville, MA · In effect
San Francisco Acquisition of Surveillance Technology Ordinan · San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA/Muni) · In effect
Surveillance Technology Ordinance · Cambridge, MA · In effect
First U.S. Biometric Terminal (Maynard H. Jackson Internatio · City of Atlanta / Delta / CBP (Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Terminal F) · In effect
Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) Ordinance · Yellow Springs, OH · In effect
Chula Vista Police Department Drone as First Responder (DFR) · Chula Vista, CA · In effect
Logan Ordinance 26-12 - Temporary Land Use Ordinance (data c · Logan · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Town of Clay one-year data center moratorium and Battery Ene · Town of Clay · Enacted (not yet in effect)
City of Lynn Haven one-year AI data center moratorium · City of Lynn Haven · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Sherman Township 12-Month Moratorium on Data Centers · Sherman Township, Huron County, Michigan · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Somerville 18-Month Data Center Moratorium · Somerville, Tennessee · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Lewisville Data Center Special-Use Permit Ordinance · Lewisville, Texas · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Westfield One-Year Data Center Moratorium · Westfield, Massachusetts · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Solon Township six-month moratorium on data center proposals · Solon Township (Kent County) · Enacted (not yet in effect)
Berlin Township Data Center Ordinance · Berlin Township, Wayne County · Enacted (not yet in effect)
One-year moratorium on new data centers · Burien · Enacted (not yet in effect)
180-Day Curative Amendment Moratorium on Data Center Zoning · Hazle Township, Luzerne County · Enacted (not yet in effect)
One-Year Moratorium on New Data Center Development · Asheville · Enacted (not yet in effect)
180-Day Moratorium on Data Center Development · Brookville Borough · Enacted (not yet in effect)
SU-47 Special-Use Data Center Zoning District Ordinance · Indianapolis / Marion County · Proposed / pending
Bellingham Initiative 26-01 to Ban Algorithmic Rental Price- · Bellingham · Proposed / pending
Peru IN temporary data center moratorium (2026) · Peru, IN · In effect
Aurora CO resolution directing data center regulations, moratorium rejected (2026) · Aurora, CO · Enacted (not yet in effect)
San Francisco ALPR privacy protections (Sept 2026) · San Francisco, CA · Enacted (not yet in effect)
NYC AI Action Plan · New York City, NY · In effect
San José AI Policy · San Jose, CA · In effect
Long Beach GenAI Guidance · Long Beach, CA · In effect
Pittsburgh GenAI Use Policy · Pittsburgh, PA · In effect
New Orleans Surveillance/FR Rules · New Orleans, LA · In effect
Use of Algorithms in Rental Rates Ordinance · Minneapolis, MN · Proposed / pending
Oak Park Village Board votes 4-3 to terminate Flock Safety A · Oak Park, IL · Expired
Santa Cruz City Council votes 6-1 to terminate Flock Safety · Santa Cruz, CA · Expired
Flagstaff City Council votes unanimously to end Flock Safety · Flagstaff, AZ · Expired
Eugene ends Flock Safety ALPR contract after council-ordered · Eugene, OR · Expired
Denver ends Flock Safety ALPR contract and replaces vendor a · Denver, CO · Expired
Hillsborough ends its relationship with Flock Safety ALPR ca · Hillsborough, NC · Expired
Guidance on Artificial Intelligence (preliminary 'traffic li · New York City Public Schools, NY · Proposed / pending
City Council delays AI-capable park security camera purchase · Missoula, MT · Proposed / pending
91-day pause on data center development · Sanford, ME · Proposed / pending
Office of Artificial Intelligence Oversight · New York City · Proposed / pending
AI Gendered Impact Assessment + Interagency Taskforce · New York City · Proposed / pending
NYC resolution urging NY State to pass Advanced AI Licensing Act (A.3356) · New York City · Status unknown
Nashville/Davidson County temporary moratorium on data centers · Nashville-Davidson County · Proposed / pending
Fayetteville data-center ordinance (public hearing Aug 10, 2026) · Fayetteville, North Carolina · Proposed / pending
Atlanta City Council resolution accepting AI Commission recommendations · Atlanta · Status unknown
Town of Beloit WI data center moratorium resolution (2026) · Town of Beloit, WI · Proposed / pending
Haddonfield NJ schools generative AI policy (first reading) · Haddonfield, NJ · Proposed / pending
Poway CA AI data center ban ordinance, first reading (2026) · Poway, CA · Proposed / pending
Aurora CO evaporative cooling ban ordinance, first reading (2026) · Aurora, CO · Proposed / pending
SFPD proposed DGO 10.12 drone policy (2026) · San Francisco, CA · Proposed / pending
Chicago 12-month data center moratorium ordinance (proposed 2026) · Chicago, IL · Proposed / pending
Boston surveillance ordinance amendment proposal (2026) · Boston, MA · Proposed / pending
Ilion NY proposed 2 MW large-load moratorium (LL 3 of 2026) · Ilion, NY · Proposed / pending
Lead SD proposed ALPR / mass surveillance ban (2026) · Lead, SD · Proposed / pending
Memphis TN data center moratorium Ord. 5982 (pending final reading) · Memphis, TN · Proposed / pending
Anchorage AO 2026-108 surveillance technology / ALPR ordinance · Anchorage, AK · Proposed / pending
NYC Int 1196-2025 · New York, NY · Proposed / pending
Providence CPRA Amendments · Providence, RI · Proposed / pending
Chicago City AI Ordinance (stalled) · Chicago, IL · Proposed / pending
NYC AI Oversight Office Bill · New York City, NY · Proposed / pending
Chicago AI police report ban (proposed, O2026-0024089) · Chicago, IL · Proposed / pending
Brooks v. Wilmington OH emergency rezoning challenge (2026) · Wilmington, OH · Blocked / in litigation
Lowell MA Markley data center diesel generator injunction (2026) · Lowell, MA · Blocked / in litigation

All topics · Full directory · Submit a correction