Opacity Is the Moratorium Movement's Best Recruitment Tool

The White House's Ratepayer Protection Pledge, signed by Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, Oracle, and xAI, is the week's marquee policy development, but the concrete deal structures emerging around it matter most. Xcel Energy's agreement to supply 1,900 MW of new generation for Google's Pine Island, Minnesota datacenter includes full cost internalization, a $50 million grid reliability fund, and what's billed as the world's largest iron-air battery (300 MW/30 GWh). Entergy claims $5 billion in projected customer savings across Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana from datacenter power agreements. The pledge itself remains voluntary with no enforcement mechanism, as Harvard's Electricity Law Initiative director Ari Peskoe bluntly noted. But utilities are already converting the political signal into binding contracts, and that's where the real action is.

CPS Energy currently serves 21 datacenters generating $110 million in annual revenue, but the real number to watch is what's coming: 59 future projects in planning stages that could demand roughly 26,000 MW if fully built. CPS Energy CEO Rudy Garza says the utility can meet demand "over the next few years" but may need additional power sources beyond that. CPS is piloting on-site power generation models with tariff requirements, attempting to shift capex burden off the grid operator.

Meanwhile, San Antonio City Council is split on whether to accelerate updates to the Unified Development Code, which currently has zero datacenter-specific rules. Councilman Ric Galvan and Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones want 1,000-foot residential buffers and general industrial classification now; the UDC update isn't scheduled until 2027. The scale of what's happening in San Antonio demands smart regulatory frameworks before the pipeline materializes. If zoning updates lag and CPS can't secure generation fast enough, the city risks either turning away investment or absorbing grid strain without adequate protections.

Food and Water Watch released what it calls a first-of-its-kind report demanding a nationwide datacenter construction moratorium. The group frames the math starkly: New York datacenters alone seek 9,000+ MW of new demand, 1.5 times the state's total household power consumption. Projected U.S. datacenter water consumption could hit 720 billion gallons annually by 2028.

Active moratorium or restrictive legislation efforts now span multiple states:

- Pennsylvania: State Sen. Katie Muth announced bipartisan legislation for a three-year moratorium on hyperscale datacenters - Wisconsin: Protesters rallied at the state Capitol demanding a development moratorium; Dane County formed an advisory committee with a February 2027 reporting deadline - Utah: 350+ residents packed an Iron County hearing opposing the 1.5 GW Antelope Data Center - Indiana: Marion County faces four rezoning proposals where developers Sabey and Metrobloks have declined to disclose server counts or megawatt demand

The pattern is consistent: communities mobilize, developers stonewall on specifics, and local officials lack technical capacity to evaluate what they're approving. Upper Burrell, Pennsylvania's township chair acknowledged TECfusions provided no sustainability or health studies for its 3 GW project, only verbal commitments. Resident Dan Myers captured the gap: "How are they going to write an ordinance to regulate this thing if they don't even know what it takes to build this thing?" Bottom line: developers who don't proactively disclose power draw, water consumption, and cooling architecture are handing ammunition to moratorium advocates. Every opaque filing makes the next restrictive bill more likely.

PowerHouse Data Centers' $20 billion, 1.8 GW Joliet Technology Center won planning commission approval for a 795-acre, 24-building campus southwest of Chicago. The Perot family's Hillwood Holding owns the development company. PowerHouse claims $310 million in property taxes and $40 million in utility taxes over 30 years without incentives.

The pitch centers on power independence: PowerHouse says it will "secure and pay for its own electricity, independent of residential or small-business service." But no details on generation source, interconnection point, or backup fuel strategy have been disclosed. The City Council votes March 16, and opposition was fierce: hundreds of residents showed up to the planning meeting, and the hearing stretched for hours. For Texas operators, this is a competitive signal. A 6 GW-plus pipeline across Virginia, Texas, North Carolina, Kentucky, Indiana, Nevada, and Pennsylvania positions PowerHouse as a national player. Whether Joliet's interconnection clears the regional transmission operator will test Midwest grid capacity for gigawatt-scale loads.

Two stories illustrate diverging approaches to datacenter water management. Tucson is drafting zoning rules requiring facilities over 50,000 sq ft that consume 7.48 million gallons monthly or more to demonstrate sustainable water use, with at least 30% sourced from reclaimed water. The No Desert Data Center Coalition questions enforceability, noting well-capitalized operators can simply pay fines.

In Ohio, Prologis's Project Mila near Cincinnati plans four buildings consuming 15 million gallons annually, modest by hyperscale standards, but the City of Trenton is still verifying the figure against applicable codes. Community opposition exists but is limited (85 petition signatures).

San Antonio's SAWS framed datacenter water as "both a risk and an opportunity," noting newer liquid cooling systems prove more efficient than older evaporative methods but the utility is legally bound to serve paying customers, limiting leverage. The contrast matters: Tucson is setting thresholds before projects arrive; Trenton is reviewing after land acquisition. Neither approach resolves the core tension that water utilities in most jurisdictions can't refuse service. Bottom line: operators designing cooling systems now should plan for reclaimed-water mandates as the emerging regulatory baseline in water-stressed regions.