Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States The Almighty Buck

Data Center Opponents Have Blocked Or Delayed Projects Worth Nearly $130 Billion In 2026 (nbcnews.com) 104

Posted by BeauHD from the universally-opposed dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NBC News: The first quarter of 2026 produced the most blocked and delayed data center projects on record, according to a new study shared with NBC News. The study -- conducted by Data Center Watch, a project of the AI intelligence firm 10a Labs that tracks local data center activity -- found that data center opponents blocked or delayed at least 75 projects nationwide worth about $130 billion from January through March, the most in a three-month period since the group began tracking in 2023.

"The quarter reflected a structural shift rather than a cyclical spike: communities have internalized an opposition playbook, legislative sessions introduced formal regulatory uncertainty, and the number of active opposition groups more than doubled to 833 across 49 states," the authors wrote, noting that the total number and value of data centers blocked or delayed during the first three months of 2026 roughly matched the total for all of 2025.

[...] The report found that legislative pushes for moratoriums on constructing data centers ballooned during the first quarter of 2026, sponsored by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. The report found such proposals introduced in 14 states from January through March, with Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., introducing a federal version. Though none of the proposals has been signed into law, one did reach the desk of Democratic Gov. Janet Mills in Maine. She vetoed it in April.

More than 300 bills were introduced in statehouses across the country just in the first six weeks of 2026, the authors found, saying it marked "a clear shift from incentive-focused policies toward regulatory oversight as the scale of energy demands became clearer." What's more, the study found that the number of active grassroots opposition groups across the country more than doubled from 396 at the end of 2025 to 833 by March. The authors found that the states with the most opposition groups through that month were Maryland, Ohio and Texas. "In some cases," they wrote, "opposition mobilized before any project was officially filed, the mere rumor of a data center was enough to trigger organized resistance."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Data Center Opponents Have Blocked Or Delayed Projects Worth Nearly $130 Billion In 2026 More

Data Center Opponents Have Blocked Or Delayed Projects Worth Nearly $130 Billion In 2026

Comments Filter:

  • The only commentary appropriate; (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MrMacman2u ( 831102 ) on Friday June 12, 2026 @11:36PM (#66189626) Journal

    Oh no!

    Anyway.

  • How many megawatts is that? (Score:3)

    by Tony Isaac ( 1301187 ) on Friday June 12, 2026 @11:37PM (#66189628) Homepage

    Isn't that the unit of measure these days for data centers?

    • Re:How many megawatts is that? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Zenocide ( 574610 ) on Friday June 12, 2026 @11:58PM (#66189644)
      I believe the more appropriate measurement is in Sticks of RAM. At current prices, $130 billion is what...2 or 3 sticks of RAM?
    • The real unit of measure is Imaginary Dollars that Haven't Arrived Yet. They're good for waving in front of temporarily employed, ignorant city counsels and state pols to buy tax breaks that go out decades. If you insist on voting Progressive they're also useful for draconian tax levies, even in their absence, actually, in spite of it.

  • Every day, putting data centers in space is more appealing.

    • or they can take those datacenters and shove them straight up their...

      And my account has been banned.

    • It has to be space because even if you had no NIMBY bullshit to deal with at all, there's still a limit to how much solar power you can generate on Earth.

      • It's always sunny in space.

        • Done some integrated circuit design for ESA. Electronics circuits do not like space.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by leonbev ( 111395 )

            They also need to get space launch costs to about 5% of where they are now to make orbital data centers profitable, but don't let things like economic reality lower the hype on that new SpaceX IPO.

            • Tsk tsk. You gentlemen are forgetting Step 4 is always Profit!
            • Dude... no really... our regular transistors fried, our regular circuits glitched. We had to do some serious redesign. This was power electronics. You could see the transistors on the silicon without a microscope. Millimeters of transistors. Amps of current, simple logic and analog. Not some flimsy finfet of a few atom layers thick that they use in state of the art electronics these days. You know, the ones where you look at in the wrong way and they flip from 0 to 1.

              • We call that line of thought, and the ecosystem surrounding it, "old space". It's unnecessary, incredibly expensive, time-consuming, and end result isn't even very good. Unless...are these components being placed directly into space? If so...why on earth...erm...in space...would you do such a thing? COTS components can work fine. And no, I don't mean putting big lead blocks into space or anything silly like that. The internet has much to say about the way Falcon does it.

                The ESA spends years, often over a de

                • The ESA spends years, often over a decade, overengineering and certifying components. By the time they're ready for production, the private sector is already a generation or two ahead.

                  I have no idea how you came up with this idiotic notion. Computers chips need to be hardened. They basically have to be redesigned so that radiation in space does not randomly flip bits. Every space agency takes existing chips and spends years to make them space ready. ESA/NASA are not purposefully delaying components for no reason.

                  A Starlink satellite can undergo a complete product lifecycle, from design proposal to end of life, in the time it takes the ESA to certify a single component, let alone a complete product.

                  A Starlink satellite can fail because 1) it's a private company 2) There are many satellites. 3) ESA/NASA projects like the James Webb cannot be serviced.

                  I really don't believe the ESA has the capacity to move past this either because it's bound by politics. What I mean by that is, you're never going to get out of the trap of having to design and build everything across 20 (or whatever it is) different member states, and all the logistical baggage that drags along with it. NASA has a similar constraint.

                  The logistical baggage a

                  • Honestly, few people on this site are as hilarious as you are. Your main competitors are rsilvergun and drinkypoo.

                    I have no idea

                    Obviously. You couldn't be bothered to research the hint I left behind. Or perhaps you missed the hint entirely. Oh well.

                    Computers chips need to be hardened.

                    I didn't say they don't.

                    They basically have to be redesigned so that radiation in space does not randomly flip bits.

                    No they don't. It certainly helps to reduce it, but only an UnknowingFool would think a flipped bit or two is necessarily either catastrophic or flight ending/endangering. Even somebody with a basic computer science understanding would understand why th

                    • Obviously. You couldn't be bothered to research the hint I left behind. Or perhaps you missed the hint entirely. Oh well.

                      There is no research needed. You have no idea what you are talking about.

                      I didn't say they don't.

                      You are away one of the major components is the computer right? That takes years to get them ready for space. By the time they are ready, they are very obsolete compared to what the average consumer can buy.

                      No they don't. It certainly helps to reduce it, but only an UnknowingFool would think a flipped bit or two is necessarily either catastrophic or flight ending/endangering. Even somebody with a basic computer science understanding would understand why that may not be the case.

                      BAHAHAHHAHAHA. You are an idiot [wikipedia.org]. Components not radiation hardened is believed to be the cause of Fobos-Grunt failure as it did not leave Earth orbit.

                      I didn't say that. What I am saying is there's a faster way to iterate, and even though it has been conclusively proven to work, the ESA still sticks to the old ways.

                      Most things ESA works on is not for the private sector. Most of what the ESA works

                    • You guys say that a lot.

                      https://stratechery.com/2024/e... [stratechery.com]

                      But this isn't the kind of thing where you have to wait a few years to find out you were wrong like the ESA did, because the present reality is that this does work, and the way you're doing things is mostly just wasteful. Some details on this, straight from the horse's mouth:

                      https://www.reddit.com/r/space... [reddit.com]

                      It's ok for bits to flip as long as you've got a plan for detecting when this happens, and how you intend to correct when it happens.

                    • Uhm... yes indeed. You can handle bit flips. But that comes at a serious cost. Do not underestimate that. It takes more than ECC memory. Bits statistically flipping everywhere.
                      Also, we are talking about servers. These things need to run fast. Those two combined make this a headache. We may need to top up our tylenol for that.
                      There is other stuff that goes wrong in space. I was the local latch-up expert. I had a lot of fun trying to violently blow up ICs. Too bad our designers were pretty good. Thank go

            • Starship is likely pretty close to that, but I'm curious to see your math.

            • It's just a matter of being fully reusable. They'll get it down to about what airlines charge for checked bags and you'll still be saying it's not enough

          • Done some integrated circuit design for ESA. Electronics circuits do not like space.

            Are trying to tell me the ESA just now figuring this out?

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by gtall ( 79522 )

          This just in, the alleged administration has polished an Executive Order making space data centers coal powered.

      • t has to be space because even if you had no NIMBY bullshit to deal with at all

        Yeah I think it's 100% entirely appropriate to NOT have massive amounts of unpleasant noise pollution in people's back yards. But it's "bullshit" for peons to not be gobbling up whatever scraps mega corporations throw to them regardless of the costs to themselves.

        • There have been datacenters for decades. All of a sudden it's a problem not because of noise pollution, but because of some imaginary threat that nobody can quite name. And hey, I'm not even arguing for terrestrial DC's. I'm just saying it's irrational NIMBY bullshit (but we have to take it seriously anyway).

          • All of a sudden it's a problem not because of noise pollution, but because of some imaginary threat that nobody can quite name. And hey, I'm not even arguing for terrestrial DC's. I'm just saying it's irrational NIMBY bullshit (but we have to take it seriously anyway).

            No the problem is for decades, companies building data centers understood the infrastructure may not be able to support them. These companies understood they might have to build the power and water to support the datacenter. The current problem is many of these new datacenters just lets someone else worry about the infrastructure like the local community. Communities really would not give a shit if the datacenter supplied their own power and water like they have for decades.

    • Don't overlook the potential dangers.

      We should be concerned about satellite collisions, perhaps between satellites from different companies or countries, and fear large-scale destruction involving many satellites.
      There could be chain reactions of collisions.
      There is already space debris tracked from previous collisions.
      And then potential satellite debris falling to the ground, not mention the job of retiring satellites and the graveyard orbit.

      And one should mention the potential consequences for, amo
    • If you mean that is a terrible idea, then I am all for Meta and Tesla doing it.

  • No, they didn’t (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Friday June 12, 2026 @11:59PM (#66189646)
    The advocacy groups didn’t stop datacenters from getting built. Reality did. Altogether, the big companies had announced enough data center building to consume 10 times the total planetary electricity generation, and also use up the next 150 years of semiconductor production. The math and physics literally didn’t work. Only a sliver of them can get built. The rest are vapor. It’s like Meta assuming that it’ll command every ad dollar on the planet, or a memecoin valuing itself at “a HUnDREd tRIlliOn doLlARz”. Just cause someone says it, doesn’t make it reality.

    The anti-datacenter movement is full of people who need something shiny and new to be outraged about, and the politicians pander to it because they can pass laws banning the construction of datacenters that were never gonna be constructed anyways,
    • Nice, you figured it out.

      I've suspected they were overbuilding/overpromising but I couldn't find the hard data to be sure.
    • Absolutely correct. Capitalism is king in the US, it gets what it wants. That sometimes means some rich guy has to propose 10 data centers to ultimately get the 1 he actually wants. The masses have the illusion of agency and their politicians have the illusion of independence. In every meaningful, measurable way democracy is a lie in this country and our populace is too cognitively impaired to ever do a damn thing about it. I'm past trying to find a fix. I'm only documenting at this point. I'm sure s

    • The anti-datacenter movement is full of people who need something shiny and new to be outraged about, and the politicians pander to it because they can pass laws banning the construction of datacenters that were never gonna be constructed anyways,

      Now that is the biggest bullshit I have heard in a while. When people protest these data centers they tell anyone who will listen their exact concerns. #1 is electricity. #2 is water. They don’t give a shit what the datacenter actually does. They don’t want to pay more for electricity and water. In some cases, the datacenter threatens to take away one or both because the builder in many cases had no concrete plans to supply either. "Build it and they will come" seems to have been the entire plan

      • >> "Build it and they will come" seems to have been the entire planning of how to power and cool these centers.

        Bullshit. The local data centers here in Texas underwent an extensive review process. They are sited near high voltage lines and get power directly from there through power purchase agreements. They use closed-loop cooling.

        There's a lot of local opposition to them but it has been pumped up by misinformation similar to what you are repeating. One data center in Truckee California may have boug

        • Bullshit. The local data centers here in Texas underwent an extensive review process. . They are sited near high voltage lines and get power directly from there through power purchase agreements. They use closed-loop cooling.

          1) Truckee California is not in Texas. 2) Even the governor of right wing, MAGA Texan Greg Abbott wants datacenters to not affect residential taxpayers. [texas.gov]. You were saying?

          There's a lot of local opposition to them but it has been pumped up by misinformation similar to what you are repeating.

          What part of people don't give a shit as long as their water and power are not affected is unclear to you? That's it. Data centers in small towns will always affect the local infrastructure. In decades past, datacenters had to build all the infrastructure they needed. And the locals didn't give a shit as long as they did that. What is happ

          • >> You were saying?

            I was saying that the local data centers don't affect the residents. They use closed-loop cooling and they are sited properly. What part didn't YOU understand?

            >> many datacenter have done zero planning for their needs

            Show evidence.

            • I was saying that the local data centers don't affect the residents. They use closed-loop cooling and they are sited properly. What part didn't YOU understand?

              And closed loop cooling uses zero water. Oh it uses less water, not zero water. What about power? Does datacenters use closed-loop power? That does not exist?

              Show evidence.

              Truckee, California. That datacenter did not build their own power. They are just buying all of Truckee's power. Screw the locals.

              • >> Truckee, California. That datacenter did not build their own power.

                You claimed, with no evidence, that "many datacenter have done zero planning for their needs". And you still can't come up with a list of them.

                • You claimed, with no evidence, that "many datacenter have done zero planning for their needs". And you still can't come up with a list of them.

                  Bahahahahahaha. You asked for evidence. I presented one example. The datacenter near Truckee California is buying all of Truckee's power. It seems pretty clear they did not build their own power plant. I do not know how to explain that any clearer to you.

                  • That's one data center, dimwit. Where's the 'many'? And it sure looks like that one datacenter near Truckee California planned quite well for their needs, they are getting electricity.

                    • That's one data center, dimwit. Where's the 'many'?

                      You wrote; "Show evidence." And I gave that to you. Now you are complaining I didn't give you all the evidence that you never asked for.

                      And it sure looks like that one datacenter near Truckee California planned quite well for their needs, they are getting electricity.

                      I wrote " It seems pretty clear they did not BUILD their own power plant." No one is complaining that these data centers did not plan to USE electricity. That is either dishonest or idiotic.

                    • You claimed; "You think it's one datacenter. From what I am seeing, many, many datacenter have done zero planning for their needs."

                      And you still can't come up with a list of them, or even one.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

            What part of people don't give a shit as long as their water and power are not affected is unclear to you? That's it. Data centers in small towns will always affect the local infrastructure. In decades past, datacenters had to build all the infrastructure they needed. And the locals didn't give a shit as long as they did that. What is happening now is the rush to build new datacenters wants to skip over the infrastructure problems.

            Until recently, datacenters were located near urban areas - the power, water

            • In the past, companies building datacenters in rural areas for cheap land would build the infrastructure. After all, the companies needed these datacenters to be reliable as the local infrastructure would not be adequate. Also these rural areas could rarely afford the infrastructure changes needed even if they wanted to build them.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kackle ( 910159 )
      So how many is a "sliver"? My water pump company is still seeing their RFQs come across our desks.

  • Good (Score:4, Interesting)

    by thePsychologist ( 1062886 ) on Saturday June 13, 2026 @12:22AM (#66189660) Journal

    The only reason people use AI is the prisoner's dilemma. It's worthless for us and every data center should be blocked, and their companies rendered bankrupt.

    • Oh, now, don't be so pessimistic. I'm sure that, in time, AI will also be able to solve the Trolley Problem. Perhaps we'll be able to get rid of the entire field of Philosophy if we can just teach AI how to get drunk!

  • Not in my back yard seems to be common response. I belive it to be somewhat valid. I have yet to see a community talk about how it has improved their quality of life and/or property values.
    In my opinion, the best approach would be for interested countries to invest heavily into one or two major locations to host several data centers. Small modular reactors, hydro electric, geothermal, etc should be built near these sites to provide their power needs and major telecom upgrades/new lines should be buil

    • In my opinion, the best approach would be for interested countries to invest heavily into one or two major locations to host several data centers. Small modular reactors, hydro electric, geothermal, etc should be built near these sites to provide their power needs and major telecom upgrades/new lines should be built to provide them with the required power and connectivity needs. Sadly every one wants the milk and butter but no one wants to raise the cow.

      Datacenters have been built for decades all over the world including the US. People know that building them in small towns with cheap land means the electric or water infrastructure required may not exist. However in decades past, the builders often built the infrastructure they needed. Companies like Google and Apple would build the power plant, the water plant, etc. The recent boom to make AI datacenter seems to have put the AI in charge of planning: no planning, just build it.

    • >> how it has improved their quality of life

      The data centers pay taxes. One of them on the outskirts of a nearby town is paying enough tax to fund most of the fire department.

  • no surprise (Score:3)

    by fluffernutter ( 1411889 ) on Saturday June 13, 2026 @08:41AM (#66189902)
    Is it really any surprise that the year with suddenly the most datacenter projects has the most blocked? Seems like this is more of a correlation rather than a cause situation.
  • I found this [youtube.com] interesting.
  • You say ... projects worth so-many-billion$ . Question is, worth those billions to whom? Not to me or to most citizens. Worth that $130-billion to tax-assessing government? Perhaps. Worth that  bubble to investors? Only if casual computer users are forced to use LLMs ... which seems to be the ongoing ploy. You can smell the septic  forced-usage-meme in posts from *.ai fans right here on SLASHDOT. 

  • Data Center Opponents Have Blocked Or Delayed Projects, Saving Citizens Trillions In Water and Electricity Bills Noise Pollution and General Contamination In 2026

  • what about the "Paid by the Chinese" outside agitators? What happens to THOSE jobs?

  • Given the hunger for computing, data centers will get built regardless of opposition. They'll just get built somewhere else. When enough number of new data centers built elsewhere and existing ones cannot renew, related jobs will have to move too eventually. It will undoubtedly affect areas with high concentration of data centers like Virginia, Silicon Valley, Phoenix, Chicago, Atlanta. Those jobs likely will move to Texas, Ohio, Penn, Wyoming, North/South Dakota. This might bring about big changes in terms

Slashdot Top Deals

"Only a brain-damaged operating system would support task switching and not make the simple next step of supporting multitasking." -- George McFry

Close