Plain-English version. Until June 24, the most common threshold for state and local data-center legislation was either 100 MW+ (hyperscale conventional definition, used by industry groups like AFCOM and Uptime Institute) or no threshold at all (county moratoriums typically apply to 'any new data center development,' regardless of size). The 20 MW number is structurally different — it sweeps in a much larger population of facilities: - A typical enterprise data center serving a Fortune-500 bank or insurance company is 5–15 MW. - A typical wholesale colocation building (Equinix, Digital Realty, CyrusOne) is 20–60 MW per building, or 100+ MW per campus. - A typical hyperscaler colo lease (AWS, Microsoft, Google, Meta in a wholesale provider) is 20–100 MW per building. - A typical hyperscaler owned campus (Project Kilby, Stargate, AWS Oregon) is 200 MW – 2.67 GW. At a 20 MW cutoff, the moratorium covers essentially the entire planned commercial pipeline — not just the marquee hyperscaler campuses but also the wholesale colo product that powers most enterprise IT. The choice of 20 MW is not random — it's the same number FERC used in its RM26-4-000 docket (the docket where FERC is considering uniform rules for large electrical loads, with action expected by end of June 2026). FERC's docket defines a 'large electrical load' as ≥20 MW. So: - FERC RM26-4-000 (federal, regulatory): 20 MW threshold. - NY S.10642 (state, statutory): 20 MW threshold. - Sanders S.4214 + AOC HR companion (federal, statutory): 20 MW threshold. Three separate actors, in different branches of government, with no public coordination, converging on the same numeric line within 30 days. That's not coincidence; it's the formation of a regulatory consensus around what 'hyperscale' means for the purposes of public-policy intervention. The number will probably stick. Watch for the next 5–10 state moratorium bills (the ones currently in queue per the Brockovich AI Data Center Reporting tracker, including bills in IL, MA, NJ, WA, OR) to either use 20 MW or to be measured against 20 MW as the reference threshold.
Why it matters
Three implications. (1) Cliff's diligence product threshold should be set at 20 MW peak load, not 100 MW. The regulatory boundary that matters for moratorium / state-statute exposure is 20 MW. A 50 MW campus in NY, FL, or IL would be subject to all the same provisions as a 500 MW campus, so the diligence stack — environmental impact, water-use review, separate-rate-class economics, renewable mandate — applies equally to a one-building wholesale colo as to a giga-campus. The 'who is my customer' segmentation gets wider: it's not just hyperscaler campus developers, it's also Equinix / Digital Realty / CyrusOne / EdgeConneX / QTS at the wholesale-colo product layer. (2) The wholesale-colo product is the most exposed asset class. Hyperscaler owned campuses (Microsoft + Chevron Kilby, Meta LEAP, Google Oklahoma) have the capital and political access to negotiate out of moratoriums via co-located gas or behind-the-meter structures (see yesterday's Kilby coverage). Wholesale colocations don't — they sell standardized 20–50 MW buildings on long-term leases and can't restructure each one bespoke. A single state-level moratorium at the 20 MW threshold blocks their entire next-generation product. Watch for Equinix / DLR / CyrusOne to issue specific 8-K or investor disclosures about NY S.10642 over the next 2 weeks. (3) FERC's RM26-4-000 (the uniform-rules-for-large-electrical-loads docket) is now structurally important even though it's been under-discussed in the corpus. If FERC issues a final rule before end-of-June with the 20 MW threshold, the convergence becomes formal: federal regulator (FERC RM26-4-000) + state legislature (NY S.10642) + federal statute (AOC HR, symbolic) all using the same number. That's a regulatory consensus a court would be reluctant to disturb.
Related filings
FERC show cause orders Jun 18 / Section 206 / PJM MISO SPP CAISO ISO-NE NYISO / 30-day informational report Jul 20 / 60-day tariff response Aug 17 / 90-day abeyance request Aug 3 / five reform categories / cost-shift prevention is the big one / colocation + BTMG rules / flexible-load transmission services
Plain-English version. On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC, the federal regulator with jurisdiction over the interstate transmission grid) used Section 206 of the Federal Power Act to issue what are called 'show-cause orders'...
FERC RM26-4 / ~17 days out / three possible form factors / 3 preemption signals to watch
Plain-English framing. (Recap from yesterday for new context.) FERC committed in April to act by end of June on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking covering large-load interconnection to the interstate transmission system. The substantive ruling could...
FERC / Holland & Knight / Power Magazine ↗
FERC ANOPR / DOE Section 403 / decision due end of June
Plain-English framing. FERC regulates the interstate transmission grid. Until now, interconnection rules for loads (as opposed to generators) have been overwhelmingly state-level — a developer interconnects through whichever state PUC and utility happens to...
FERC / Utility Dive / Snell & Wilmer / White & Case ↗
FL moratorium wave / Clay final + Hernando, Lake first reading Jun 23 / Santa Rosa 3-1 to draft / Zephyrhills final / 5-8 FL jurisdictions in 5 weeks / SB 484 backdrop / water-first concern
Plain-English version of what happened. Tuesday, June 23 was the single most active moratorium day Florida has had — three county boards moved separate ordinances forward in a coordinated wave. Clay County (just south of Jacksonville, ~220,000 residents) gave...