Summary#

SB-353 would create a temporary moratorium on permits and approvals for new data centers that use, or can use, at least 100 megawatts of power. It also would require the General Assembly to hold hearings, convene working groups, and commission studies; assessing the effects of data centers is the bill’s stated goal, not a guaranteed result. The supplied text does not identify a specific existing Act, so the change could not be checked against current law. The bill is listed as introduced, not as law.

• Counties, municipalities, and other government agencies or local authorities could not grant approval or a construction permit for a covered data center during the moratorium.
• A covered data center is defined by its purpose, equipment, and power capacity: it must provide for digital data and contain equipment such as servers, and use or be able to use at least 100 megawatts.
• The General Assembly must convene working groups, hold public hearings, and commission studies on the economic, environmental, and social impacts of data centers and their expansion.
• The Act would expire January 31, 2027, unless the General Assembly ends or extends it sooner. The bill does not say how existing permits or projects would be treated.

What it means for you#

• Local governments and permitting agencies: They could not grant a construction permit or approval for a covered new data center during the moratorium.
• Data center developers: A project meeting the bill’s definition could not receive the covered approval or permit during the moratorium. Whether an application could still be submitted or processed is unclear.
• Residents and the public: The General Assembly would have to hold public hearings, but the bill does not set when they must happen or how the public can take part.
• Existing data centers and proposed expansions: The bill does not clearly say whether an expansion counts as a “new data center” or whether existing approvals are affected.

Money#

No cost information is available in the supplied material.

• The bill requires studies, working groups, and hearings, but gives no budget, cost estimate, or funding source.
• No fees, fines, tax changes, or compensation are specified.

What is unclear#

• The bill says there is a moratorium on “all applications and approvals,” but its specific permit rule bars approvals and permits. It does not explain whether applications may be submitted, accepted, or reviewed.
• It does not define “new data center” or explain how the moratorium applies to expansions, projects with existing approvals, or facilities below the 100-megawatt threshold.
• It does not name who would run the working groups, conduct the studies, or set their scope, deadlines, or public-participation rules.
• The supplied material does not identify the existing law being amended or explain how this bill would interact with current permitting rules.

Case for#

• A temporary pause could give lawmakers time to study the effects of large data centers before more covered projects receive approval.
• Required hearings could give the public a chance to provide input while those studies are underway.
• The bill sets a clear size threshold and an end date, rather than making the moratorium indefinite.

Case against#

• The bill does not set deadlines or requirements for the studies, hearings, or working groups beyond requiring them during the moratorium.
• It is unclear whether applications can still be submitted or reviewed, and how existing projects or expansions would be handled.
• A pause on approvals could delay covered projects, while the bill does not explain how agencies should treat applications already in progress.