Seattle / preemptive withdrawal

Why it matters

This is the cleanest data point so far that the *threat* of a local moratorium has direct underwriting impact, separate from whether one passes. Sabey is not a marginal player — they're a long-tenured Tacoma/Tukwila operator with an existing campus, and they walked from a 68 MW expansion at a site they already own and operate, before any ordinance touched them. Add to byog-byong-state-patchwork.md as the canonical 'moratorium-threat-as-effective-veto' case. For the regulatory-knowledge-graph: this means moratorium-status modeling needs three states, not two — passed, pending, and *announced-but-not-introduced* — because the third already has a measurable price effect. Useful for de-rate-calculator-gtm.md framing too: the right denominator for site-level regulatory risk is not just enacted ordinances but the rumor-ordinance pipeline that's been growing for ~6 months in jurisdictions with rising data center concentration. Also note the asymmetry: Sabey withdrew but Equinix and Prologis stayed — likely a function of how far along their interconnection studies are and how exposed each is to the specific water / land-use concerns. That's a heterogeneous response Cliff's air-permit / interconnection / siting integration is positioned to map and price.