Make the Moratorium Mean Something

On May 18, Denver City Council is expected to vote on a one-year data center moratorium. That vote matters. But the moratorium itself is not the end goal. If Denver City Council passes the Data Center Moratorium, Denver will have a year. The question is what the city will do with it.

The goal is not simply to pause data centers but instead use the pause to pass a strong data center ordinance with real community protections.

By the end of the moratorium, Denver should have enforceable law governing siting, zoning, energy use, grid reliability, water demand, wastewater discharge, diesel generators, air pollution, noise, heat, cumulative impacts, surveillance, public disclosure, cost-shifting, and ongoing community oversight. Denver should not approve, permit, or energize large data centers faster than the grid, public-health rules, water protections, and cost-protection rules can be built.

This is far from an abstraction. Denver Water has declared a Stage 1 drought. As of March 23, snowpack in Denver Water’s two primary watersheds was among the worst on record: 55% of normal in the Colorado River Basin and 42% of normal in the South Platte River Basin. Denver Water’s own manager of water supply said snowpack in both basins was “the lowest observed in the past 40 years.” (Denver Water)

At the same time, data centers are emerging as a new class of large electric load. ESIG and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory warn that modern large loads, especially data centers, are bigger, faster, more concentrated, harder to forecast, and operationally different from traditional industrial loads. They can connect quickly, shift or drop load rapidly, and create planning and reliability challenges that existing utility systems are still trying to understand. (ESIG)

That is why the moratorium, if passed, must be more than symbolic. It must become a law-writing process with a deadline, a public record, strong community representation, and concrete standards that become enforceable city law before the moratorium ends.

The demand

If Denver passes the one-year data center moratorium, the city must use that year to write and pass a strong data center ordinance before corporations write Denver’s future for us.

That ordinance must protect communities, water, air, energy affordability, public health, civil liberties, and the grid.

1. Treat data centers as major infrastructure, not ordinary warehouses

Data centers are not ordinary buildings. They are private infrastructure projects with public consequences.

They consume massive electricity, require cooling, create heat, use water or air-intensive cooling systems, rely on backup power, produce noise, and can trigger major grid upgrades. Colorado Legislative Council staff reported that data centers require large amounts of electricity and water, and that Colorado already has approximately 57 data centers. (Colorado Legislative Council)

LBNL estimates U.S. data center electricity use rose from 1.9% of total U.S. electricity consumption in 2018 to 4.4% in 2023, and could reach 6.7% to 12% by 2028. (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory)

What the ordinance should do: Denver should create a separate “Large Data Center” land-use category and require special review for any facility above a clear threshold, such as electric load, backup generation capacity, water demand, square footage, or grid-impact triggers.

At minimum, large data centers should require:

• public notice to nearby residents and affected council districts

• public hearings before approval

• mandatory disclosure of energy, water, backup power, emissions, noise, heat, and infrastructure impacts

• environmental justice and cumulative-impact review

• clear standards for denial

• enforceable operating conditions

• authority to suspend, revoke, or modify approvals if conditions are violated

The ordinance should make clear that data centers are not harmless warehouses. They are resource-intensive infrastructure, and they should be regulated as such.

2. End by-right approvals

Denver should not allow data centers to slide through old land-use channels built for ordinary industrial or commercial development.

By-right approval is the wrong tool for a facility that can affect the grid, water system, air quality, neighborhood noise, public infrastructure, and household utility costs.

What the ordinance should do: No large data center should be allowed by right. Every large data center should require special review, public hearings, and a finding that the project will not harm grid reliability, water security, public health, affordability, or already overburdened communities.

The moratorium year should be used to write this new approval pathway into law. If Denver comes out of the moratorium still allowing large data centers to move by right, the moratorium will have failed.

3. Make the moratorium year hard to evade

If the moratorium passes, the year-long pause only matters if it actually holds the line while the ordinance is being written.

A weak moratorium can be gamed. A real moratorium must cover new projects, expansions, phased development, site development plan applications, permit amendments, and attempts to break one large project into smaller pieces.

What the ordinance and moratorium process should prevent:

• new large data center approvals during the moratorium

• expansions of existing or pending data centers

• phased or segmented applications meant to avoid review

• fast-tracking during the study period

• permit approvals that lock in rights before new rules are adopted

• utility coordination or energization agreements that move ahead without public disclosure

The pause must protect the law-writing process. If projects can keep moving while the city claims it is still “studying” the issue, then the process is not protection. It is political cover.

The standard should be simple: no loopholes before the ordinance is done.

4. Require a public disclosure packet before anything moves

The public has a right to know what is being built, what it will consume, what it will emit, what it will cost, and who will carry the risk.

NRDC’s state and local decision-maker guidance says communities should have baseline disclosure before consenting to host a data center, including load growth forecast, water use and source, wastewater discharge, air pollution and toxic releases, noise impacts, mitigation measures, and proposed community benefits. It also warns local governments against signing nondisclosure agreements because they deprive communities of information about project impacts. (NRDC)

What the ordinance should do: Before any data center advances, Denver should require a public disclosure packet including:

• maximum electric load in megawatts

• projected load ramp schedule by year

• required substation, feeder, transformer, transmission, and distribution upgrades

• who pays for each upgrade

• cooling method and projected water use

• water source: potable, non-potable, recycled, or other

• peak summer water demand

• wastewater discharge volume, temperature, and chemical characteristics

• generator inventory: number, size, fuel type, emissions controls, and location

• generator testing schedule and emergency-use assumptions

• air emissions modeling, including NOx and particulate matter

• fenceline monitoring plan

• sound study, including low-frequency noise

• heat and thermal plume analysis

• traffic and haul routes

• construction dust and stormwater plan

• emergency operations plan

• tenant and end-use transparency where legally possible

• enforceable mitigation commitments

No NDAs. No shell-company games. No percent-only claims. No “trust us” sustainability branding in place of real numbers.

The ordinance should make disclosure a condition of review, not a voluntary gesture.

5. Stop cost-shifting before it happens

If a data center needs new infrastructure, the company must pay for it.

This should be one of the clearest lines in the whole ordinance: no socializing the costs while privatizing the profits.

Data centers can trigger major utility and public-infrastructure costs. Colorado Legislative Council staff note that increased data center demand can create downstream impacts on residential electricity rates. (Colorado Legislative Council) NRDC also warns that data center load growth can put grid reliability, energy affordability, and environmental goals at risk without strong consumer protections. (NRDC) FERC has also directed PJM to create transparent rules for AI-driven data centers and other large loads because unclear rules raise reliability and consumer-protection concerns. (FERC)

What the ordinance should do: Denver should require a public cost-impact study before permitting or energization, including:

• all utility upgrades triggered by the project

• all public infrastructure upgrades triggered by the project

• ratepayer exposure

• stranded asset risk if the facility reduces load, closes, or leaves

• subsidies, tax incentives, abatements, or discounted utility arrangements

• impacts on household and small-business bills

No data center should move forward without enforceable cost-causation rules, including:

• direct payment for required upgrades

• long-term service commitments

• minimum billing demand

• exit fees

• collateral or credit support

• protections against stranded costs

• public disclosure of any special rates, incentives, or agreements

The moratorium year should produce a simple rule: if a data center causes the cost, the data center pays the cost.

6. No energization without grid reliability protections

Data centers can be built faster than the infrastructure needed to safely serve them. ESIG notes that a data center can be developed in roughly 2–3 years, while new generation can take 3–10 years and transmission can take 10+ years. (ESIG)

That timing mismatch is exactly why Denver needs to use the moratorium year to write strong energization rules. If a facility comes online before the grid is ready, the risk is pushed onto neighbors, ratepayers, and the public.

NERC has already documented that emerging large loads can affect bulk power system reliability. Its 2025 white paper describes a data-center-related load reduction event in the Eastern Interconnection involving roughly 1,500 MW of voltage-sensitive load reduction, frequency overshoot, and high voltages. (NERC)

What the ordinance should do: No large data center should be energized until there is public disclosure of:

• projected load ramp

• required grid upgrades

• emergency operating assumptions

• curtailment obligations

• load-shedding protocols

• backup generation plans

• who pays for upgrades

• what happens during grid stress

• how oxygen users, medically vulnerable residents, elders, and renters will be protected during outages

If a data center claims it can help the grid by reducing or shifting load, that flexibility must be mandatory, enforceable, and public — not voluntary marketing.

The ordinance should require enforceable curtailment during grid stress, public reporting, and penalties for noncompliance.

7. No diesel loophole

Diesel backup power is not just a technical detail. It is a neighborhood air-quality issue, a noise issue, and part of the grid-risk story.

Data centers use backup generators to maintain 24/7 operations. Colorado Legislative Council staff note that data centers relying on fossil fuels and diesel backup generators emit localized air pollution, including fine particulate matter and nitrogen oxides, and that exposure to air pollution increases respiratory and cardiovascular risks. (Colorado Legislative Council) EESI also notes that data center noise and pollution concerns are tied to cooling systems, fans, and diesel generators. (EESI)

What the ordinance should do: Denver should require:

• Tier 4 or cleaner backup generation

• public generator inventory

• no diesel peak shaving

• no economic dispatch

• daylight-only testing

• strict annual runtime caps

• advance public notice of testing

• public emergency-use reporting

• continuous fenceline NOx and PM monitoring

• public emissions modeling before approval

• battery storage, fuel cells, or cleaner alternatives where feasible

• automatic penalties and permit consequences for violations

Financial fines alone are not enough. A billion-dollar company cannot be allowed to treat violations as a cost of doing business.

The ordinance should include consequences that matter: suspension authority, permit reopening, required corrective action, and limits on future expansion for repeat violations.

8. Treat water as a frontline issue

Water cannot be a footnote. Denver is under drought restrictions, and residents are being asked to conserve. Data centers should not be allowed to quietly secure major water demand while communities are told to cut back. (Denver Water)

The water impacts depend on system design. Colorado Legislative Council staff explain that cooling options include water-cooled chillers, air-side economizers, liquid cooling, and adiabatic assist, and that water-cooled systems can cause large consumptive water losses through evaporation. NASUCA’s water presentation similarly notes that water used for data-center thermal management is often evaporated, with approximately 80% of water evaporated as steam in some systems. (Colorado Legislative Council; NASUCA)

CoreSite’s own projected water demand has already become a local issue: Colorado Legislative Council staff cite reporting that CoreSite’s north Denver campus may use up to 805,000 gallons of water per day, equivalent to the average daily indoor water use of 16,100 Denverites. (Colorado Legislative Council)

What the ordinance should do: Denver should require:

• water-source disclosure

• cooling-system disclosure

• projected daily, monthly, annual, and peak summer water demand

• potable versus non-potable water breakdown

• drought-stage curtailment rules

• proof that household needs come before data-center cooling

• wastewater discharge characterization

• thermal discharge review

• chemical treatment disclosure

• PFAS and treatment-chemical screening where relevant

• indirect water-use accounting from electricity generation

• monthly public water reporting once operating

• enforceable water-use caps and penalties

If the company says it will use “efficient” cooling, it must show the numbers.

The ordinance should make clear that no data center has a right to unlimited water during drought, climate instability, or household conservation restrictions.

9. Require wastewater, thermal discharge, and chemical disclosure

Water use is not just about gallons in. It is also about what comes out.

Data center cooling can involve discharge to wastewater systems, evaporation, reuse, or recirculation. NASUCA’s presentation emphasizes that the lifecycle of data-center water depends on system design and regulatory requirements. (NASUCA)

What the ordinance should do: Denver should require public review of:

• wastewater volume

• discharge destination

• discharge temperature

• chemical treatment additives

• anti-corrosion chemicals

• filtration residues

• PFAS or forever-chemical risks where applicable

• sewer capacity impacts

• thermal impacts on infrastructure and receiving systems

No data center should receive water or sewer capacity without a public accounting of both water demand and discharge consequences.

The ordinance should require wastewater and discharge review before approval, not after the facility is already operating.

10. Require enforceable noise and low-frequency sound protections

Noise is not a minor nuisance, rather it is one of the most common day-to-day harms communities experience around data centers. (EESI)

Colorado Legislative Council staff cite research from Virginia’s “Data Center Alley” finding higher afternoon noise levels in neighborhoods 200 feet from data centers than neighborhoods two miles away, and note that low-frequency noise can affect wellbeing and cognition. (Colorado Legislative Council)

What the ordinance should do: Denver should require:

• pre-approval sound studies

• low-frequency and infrasound analysis

• nighttime noise limits

• post-construction sound monitoring

• publicly accessible monitoring data

• enforceable property-line standards

• quieter cooling technologies

• sound walls, acoustic shrouds, and building-envelope requirements

• no generator testing at night

• denial authority if homes, schools, parks, or childcare centers are too close

Noise rules must be written for 24/7 industrial operations, not one-time neighborhood complaints.

The ordinance should not force neighbors to prove harm one complaint at a time. It should prevent harm up front.

11. Require heat and waste-heat review

Data centers produce heat because computing equipment converts electricity into waste heat. The question is not whether heat exists; the question is where it goes, who absorbs it, and whether the company has explored reuse or mitigation.

What the ordinance should do: Denver should require:

• heat-impact modeling

• thermal plume analysis

• ambient heat and urban heat-island review

• impacts on nearby homes, schools, parks, workers, and transit stops

• waste-heat reuse feasibility

• One Water integration feasibility

• public explanation if heat reuse is rejected

• shade, cooling, and mitigation investments for affected neighborhoods

The standard should be simple: if a data center rejects heat reuse, non-potable cooling, sewer-heat integration, or other public-benefit options, it must explain why in public.

The moratorium year should be used to make heat review part of the approval process, not an afterthought.

12. Require cumulative-impact review in overburdened neighborhoods

Denver cannot review each data center as if it exists alone.

Neighborhoods like Globeville, Elyria-Swansea, and other disproportionately impacted communities already carry cumulative burdens from highways, industrial zoning, diesel traffic, air pollution, flooding risk, heat, displacement, and historic disinvestment.

NRDC’s state and local guidance specifically calls for cumulative-impact analysis and environmental-impact assessments to identify location-specific stresses and guide local decision-making. (NRDC)

What the ordinance should do: Denver should require cumulative-impact review for any large data center, with special protections in disproportionately impacted communities. That review should include:

• existing pollution burden

• diesel and truck exposure

• proximity to homes, schools, parks, clinics, and childcare

• flood, heat, and climate vulnerability

• displacement pressure

• existing industrial land uses

• grid and water capacity constraints

• public health indicators

• emergency preparedness and medically vulnerable residents

Denver should also study a full ban on future large data centers in cumulatively impacted communities where additional industrial burden cannot be justified.

The ordinance should make environmental justice enforceable, not symbolic.

13. Build a real community-led working group

A working group cannot be industry-managed with a few community names sprinkled on top.

If the moratorium passes, the ordinance-writing process must pay special attention to vulnerable and adversely impacted communities. That language has to be backed by structure, power, and enforcement.

What the moratorium process should require: The working group should include:

• at least half residents or resident-led/community organizations

• a majority of resident seats from directly affected neighborhoods

• strong representation from Globeville, Elyria-Swansea, and other disproportionately impacted communities

• full financial conflict disclosures

• no more than one-third seats for industry, utilities, trade groups, consultants, or entities with direct financial ties

• language access

• childcare

• stipends

• public meetings

• public agendas and recordings

• public draft recommendations

• minority reports

• independent technical support selected by community representatives

The working group’s job should not be to produce vague principles. Its job should be to produce enforceable ordinance language.

The year-long moratorium should have a real timeline: draft recommendations, public review, council hearings, and final ordinance adoption before the moratorium expires.

14. Surveillance must be part of the conversation

Data centers are not neutral infrastructure when they support mass data extraction, automated policing, license plate reader systems, facial recognition, deportation-support systems, predictive policing, or other forms of surveillance and automated harm.

If Denver passes the moratorium, the city should use the year not only to ask how much power and water data centers use, but also what kinds of systems Denver is helping to build.

What the ordinance should consider:

• tenant and end-use transparency where legally possible

• no city subsidies or fast-tracking for surveillance-linked infrastructure

• public disclosure of any city, police, jail, immigration, or contractor relationship tied to data-center services

• civil-rights review for facilities supporting mass tracking, facial recognition, predictive policing, deportation support, or harmful AI systems

• procurement guardrails so public dollars do not deepen surveillance harms

The ordinance should not pretend that infrastructure is neutral when it helps power systems of surveillance and automated harm.

15. Community oversight must continue after the moratorium

A one-time working group is not enough. Communities need power before, during, and after approvals.

What the ordinance should create: Denver should establish ongoing oversight with:

• resident-governed monitoring

• independent technical assistance

• public annual compliance reports

• public dashboards for energy, water, generator runtime, emissions, noise, and violations

• community complaint response timelines

• mandatory corrective-action plans

• permit reopening if conditions are violated

• suspension authority for serious violations

• community-governed mitigation funds

Communities most affected must have more than three minutes at a microphone after the real decisions have already been made.

The ordinance should create continuing community power, not a one-time consultation process.

What organizations should fight for during the moratorium year

The demand should be sharper than “slow down.”

The demand is: if Denver passes the one-year data center moratorium, the city must use that year to write a strong data center ordinance with real community protections.

That means fighting now for an ordinance that includes:

• a real citywide pause with no loopholes while the ordinance is written

• an end to by-right approvals

• a clear “Large Data Center” zoning definition

• special review for large data centers

• a public disclosure packet before permits or energization

• no cost-shifting to ratepayers, water customers, workers, or small businesses

• no energization without grid-reliability protections

• enforceable load curtailment during grid stress

• no diesel loophole

• strict water, wastewater, and drought protections

• enforceable noise, low-frequency sound, and nighttime limits

• heat and waste-heat review

• cumulative-impact review

• surveillance guardrails

• a community-led working group

• ongoing resident oversight with enforcement strong enough to matter

Climate organizations, labor unions, environmental justice groups, tenant organizations, neighborhood formations, public-health advocates, faith communities, and progressive institutions across Denver should treat the moratorium year as an organizing window.

The question is not just whether Denver pauses data centers.

The question is whether Denver uses the pause to write rules strong enough to protect people after the pause ends.

Closing

This is not a fight over whether Denver uses technology. It is a fight over whether billion-dollar corporations can use our neighborhoods, our water, our grid, our air, our public infrastructure, and our democracy as a site of exploitation for private growth.

The evidence is clear: data centers are not ordinary commercial buildings. They are private energy, water, air, heat, land-use, and surveillance infrastructure projects with public consequences.

A moratorium only matters if it produces binding protections before the next approval, the next expansion, the next utility agreement, and the next burden is pushed onto communities.

If Denver City Council passes the Data Center Moratorium, Denver will have a year. That year must not become a lobbyist waiting room.

It must become a public law-writing process.

By the end of the moratorium, Denver should have a strong data center ordinance that protects water, air, public health, neighborhoods, utility affordability, civil liberties, and the grid.

This is a fight over who public resources serve: the many, or the monied few.