Communities Challenge New Data Centers

The main change is a sharper emphasis on formal approvals and legislative conflict: Hallam’s project is now framed as actively seeking a zoning change, and New Hampshire’s data-center fight is cast more explicitly as a proxy battle over municipal safeguards. The Pennsylvania PAX-1 scrutiny is also slightly sharpened by adding scale and financial-politics concerns.

The story now places greater emphasis on state policy fights and financial scrutiny, especially around New Hampshire’s zoning authority and the Pennsylvania PAX-1 land sale. It also adds clearer detail on how the Nottingham setback, Hallam objections, and Pennsylvania project scale are evolving.

• Tom Moulton withdrew the Nottingham application after public opposition.
• Crusoe is now identified as a Hallam proposal partner.
• PAX-1 is described as a planned 1.35-gigawatt, three-campus development.
• New Hampshire Senate Bill 439 was effectively blocked for the current biennium.
• Political and financial ties around the PAX-1 land sale drew added scrutiny.

The story has broadened beyond Nottingham and Pennsylvania to include a new Nebraska project, while preserving the core dispute over how much authority communities should have to scrutinize data centers before they advance. The latest version also adds more concrete procedural status for the Pennsylvania and Nebraska proposals.

• Hallam, Nebraska data center proposal now included.
• Monolith is seeking zoning change or special-use permit.
• PAX-1 has zoning approval but still faces appeals.
• Developer may return with a revised Nottingham proposal.
• Preliminary water-use estimates were presented in Nebraska.

The story has sharpened from a broad regional policy debate into a specific local conflict in New Hampshire, marked by the withdrawal of the Nottingham proposal and the apparent defeat of SB 439 for this biennium. Pennsylvania’s PAX-1 project now adds a more explicit ethics-and-influence angle through the disclosed fee tied to Sen. Greg Rothman.

• Nottingham Business Park LLC withdrew its data center application.
• A petition against the project surpassed 25,000 signatures.
• SB 439 was reported as effectively defeated for the biennium.
• UNH survey found 45% supported pausing new data center construction.
• A fee tied to PAX-1 was disclosed to a company linked to Greg Rothman.

The story has broadened beyond a few state-level disputes into a wider, more concrete wave of local and state action over data center siting, with Nebraska and Pennsylvania newly entering the picture. The biggest new shift is procedural: New Hampshire’s zoning fight has stalled, while other states are moving ahead with more specific regulatory controls on costs, disclosure, and permitting.

• Nebraska enters the dispute through local opposition to the Monolith site.
• New Hampshire SB 439 was tabled after advancing in committee.
• Pennsylvania now includes the PAX-1 project and Greg Rothman controversy.
• Community notice and secrecy concerns are now more prominent.
• Local planning boards and town governments are newly central actors.

The story has broadened from a New Hampshire zoning fight into a multi-state policy push over how large data centers are permitted, taxed, and charged for infrastructure. New Hampshire is still central, but Vermont, Delaware, and Pennsylvania now add distinct regulatory models around cost allocation, transparency, and environmental limits.

• Vermont is advancing a more restrictive data center framework.
• Delaware is considering higher large-load power charges and county-level rules.
• Pennsylvania is debating repeal or conditions on a sales-tax exemption.
• Electricity cost allocation has become a central multi-state issue.
• The story now spans four states instead of one local New Hampshire dispute.

New Hampshire is debating who controls data center siting: local towns or the state. A proposed Nottingham data center drew intense opposition over water use, electricity demand, noise, and rural character, and the backlash pushed the developer to withdraw the concept for now. At the same time, state legislation such as SB 439 became a proxy fight over whether municipalities can impose specific guardrails on data centers at all.