4 jurisdictions / 5 days

Why it matters

Four updates. (1) Durham's 60-day-as-procedural-placeholder is a structurally different pattern from prior moratoria. Most prior moratoria (Northampton 32 months, Apex 12 months, Bulloch 20 months) are substantive duration choices reflecting the council's policy preference. Durham's 60 days is a *procedural artifact* — the council wants 24 months and is using the 60-day window to clear the procedural gate. Cliff's regulatory-risk module should treat any moratorium that has an explicit longer-duration follow-on commitment as 'effectively the longer duration' for hyperscaler underwriting purposes — a 24-month-target moratorium is a 24-month moratorium even if the first vote was 60 days. The 60-day Durham window also creates a coordination-risk vector: if Durham city and Durham county adopt misaligned standards (e.g., city bans hyperscale but county doesn't), developers can rezone-shop the county side of the line. The City Attorney's flag on this is the first time this issue has surfaced explicitly in moratorium-vote language, and Cliff's submission-readiness product should add a 'jurisdiction-coordination-risk' field for sites near city/county boundaries. (2) Charlotte's procedural posture — Mayor breaks tie *against* public hearing, then May 11 discussion-only, then May 18 specific-project public comment — is the slowest-moving moratorium debate in the NC cluster, contrasting sharply with Durham's expedited 60-day vote. The Mayor Vi Lyles tie-break against the public hearing is the structural-veto data point: a moratorium can't easily clear Charlotte's council without the mayor's affirmative support, which means the East Charlotte specific-project decision May 18 becomes the de-facto policy battleground. Watch May 18 closely — if East Charlotte is approved over public objection, it's the first major NC city to *not* impose a moratorium during the May 2026 wave; if denied or paused, Charlotte joins Durham/Apex/Northampton in the broader NC restriction cluster. (3) Seattle's plan is the highest-MW-impact moratorium tracked to date: 369 MW combined demand from 5 proposed sites, 2 already withdrawn, 3 remaining in active siting limbo until council action mid-May to early June. Seattle is also a structurally interesting case because Seattle City Light is municipally owned (not investor-owned utility), which means rate-structure changes don't go through a state PUC — the city council and utility board can move faster than a PSC tariff filing. Mayor Wilson's '2027 legislative session' framing for state-level legislation telegraphs that Washington state-level data-center policy is coming next year; pull WA HB / SB pre-files when they appear in the Dec 2026 / Jan 2027 cycle. (4) Oneida County WI's *proactive* moratorium (no specific proposal pending) is a cadence-shift signal. The previous pattern was reactive — counties pass moratoria in response to a specific filed proposal. Oneida's pattern is preemptive — pass the moratorium framework before a proposal arrives, so the county is never caught flat-footed. If preemptive moratoria become the dominant pattern (as Wisconsin's combined Madison + Oneida + 3-NE-WI-towns + state PSC tariff posture suggests), the moratorium-tracker count of 78/50/4 substantially understates the true policy footprint, because preemptive bans don't appear on developer-watch lists until *after* a developer has wasted weeks on site identification.