HR-10119-119
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sponsored by Tom Barrett (R-MI)
What it does
This bill would prohibit federal agency heads from overriding, bypassing, or displacing state or local land-use, zoning, siting, or permitting authority over data centers built on non-federal land. It would also bar agencies from conditioning federal funds for data centers on states or localities giving up such authority.
Who benefits
State and local governments that retain full control over zoning, siting, and permitting decisions for data centers. Local communities and residents who want a say in whether and where large data centers are built near them, including on issues like water use, noise, and traffic. Local officials and planning boards whose authority would be shielded from federal preemption.
Who is hurt
Data center developers and technology companies (including major cloud and AI computing firms) that might otherwise seek streamlined federal approval processes to speed construction. Federal agencies that might have used funding conditions or preemption to encourage faster data center buildout for national priorities like AI infrastructure or grid modernization. Communities that might have benefited economically from faster data center development if it were expedited federally.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that land-use decisions have traditionally been a local and state matter, and that data centers can strain local water supplies, electricity grids, and roads in ways that residents and local officials are best positioned to evaluate. They contend that allowing federal agencies to condition funding on relinquishing zoning authority would let Washington override community input on projects with direct local impacts like noise, land consumption, and utility costs.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that as demand for AI and cloud computing infrastructure grows, a patchwork of local zoning fights could slow construction of data centers deemed important to national economic and technological competitiveness. They contend that removing any federal coordinating tool could delay projects with regional or national significance, such as those tied to federal computing needs or critical infrastructure, even when local objections reflect narrow interests rather than broad community consensus.
Constitutional context
This bill touches federalism principles under the Tenth Amendment and the anti-commandeering doctrine, which limits federal power to control state and local regulatory decisions, as reinforced in Murphy v. NRA (2018). It does not restrict private conduct or federal preemption generally, but instead voluntarily narrows federal agencies' own conditioning and preemptive authority.
Checks and balances
Congress would restrict executive branch agencies' ability to preempt or condition funds on local zoning matters, reinforcing state and local authority rather than shifting power toward any federal branch.
Historical precedent
Similar anti-preemption provisions protecting state and local zoning authority have appeared in other contexts, such as telecommunications siting rules under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, though this bill applies specifically to data centers.