数据中心建设遭遇两党反对，中期选举或致2028年产能延期

The 2027 datacenter boom is already being built and next week’s midterms won’t stop it now. Roughly three-quarters of the 33.8 GW due across our top 20 states is already under construction, which is why we remain comfortable with the global +50 GW year we laid out in our Oct. 16 article. The campuses are taking shape. The election will change the rules around them, but much of the 2027 pipeline already has a substantial head start.

The fight is over 2028. Our model has 62.2 GW of US net additions that year, most of which hasn’t started construction. Most of it sits in states electing a governor on Nov. 3. This piece tracks the 13 states with the largest 2028 net additions in our model, setting aside Virginia and Mississippi, which don’t hold state elections this November. Together they account for 43.5 GW, or 70% of what we expect nationally, and 10 of the 13 elect a governor.

Source: SemiAnalysis Datacenter Industry Model

That leaves a 2028 pipeline still working through approvals, power projects and construction schedules as the rules change. In September, we argued that datacenter moratoriums weren’t killing the US buildout: of roughly 20 GW inside local restrictions, we estimated only 1.5 GW faced delay. Most exposed capacity already had protections or did not need the affected approval until after the pause expired. That broad conclusion has held up. What is changing is the reach of the restrictions given the growing anti-datacenter backlash.

Three things have worsened since. Texas, the largest US market, froze Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) permits on Sept. 21 on top of the interconnection-queue audit begun Aug. 3, bringing onsite power into the hold. Oregon expanded its earlier state-land freeze to air and water-discharge permits on Oct. 9, through July 1, 2027. And midterm candidates have campaigned on more restrictive positions: nine of the 20 nominees want a pause on new construction and the other 11 want conditions, and the split is about even by party. Both parties want developers to accept stricter conditions. The main difference is whether a developer can meet the new terms and keep building, or has to wait for the state to reopen approvals.

The biggest risk to our buildout forecast right now is a prolonged permitting freeze at the TCEQ. Texas alone adds close to 30% of US GW in 2028. A few months of lost time in that market can move the national number. We already flagged to Datacenter Model subscribers which companies are most at risk from the current pause. The question now is how long the pause lasts.

Gov. Greg Abbott (R), who is running for re-election in Texas, could reopen permitting once the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the state’s grid operator, finishes its audit and the Texas Water Development Board completes its water-use review. ERCOT is targeting Dec. 10 to file its report, which does not by itself reopen permitting. A restart around then would leave developers dealing with a relatively short interruption, which some projects can absorb within their schedules. The audit still has to lead to a decision to resume issuance, and each permit still needs approval.

By contrast, Gina Hinojosa (D), his challenger, presents a more bearish approach: She would impose a moratorium until legislation is passed that gives communities a voice and protects household utility bills, as well as ends the tax incentives for datacenters. The regular legislative session in Texas takes place from Jan. 12 to May 31, 2027. By keeping approvals on hold throughout that session, the freeze would last about eight months from September. If you wait for the new rules to come into effect in late summer, it will be close to a year, that is five to nine additional months compared to restarting in December. A deal or a special session might happen sooner. However, a campus racing toward delivery in 2027 may not have that much time to spare.

Source: SemiAnalysis Datacenter Industry Model

This is the risk posed by the pro-moratorium candidates: a project cannot carry out work if it still requires an approval which the state has ceased to issue. If the candidate proposing a datacenter pause won in every state where one is running, those states would together contain roughly 30 GW of planned capacity scheduled for 2028. How much actually slips depends on the permits each project still needs and how long the pause lasts.

Source: SemiAnalysis Datacenter Industry Model

We are less concerned with the candidates who support conditions only. Most of their demands change the price and terms of development. A developer can fund the grid upgrade, change the cooling design or negotiate the community agreement and then move forward. That can be expensive and time-consuming, but it gives projects a route to approval. Several of the main conditions were already coming:

• Submitting thorough water-usage studies: manageable for many projects, but the answer depends on cooling design and the local water supply.
• Paying the infrastructure costs they create: We expect this to come anyway, with datacenter developers now offering credits toward household electricity bills
• More environmental transparency and dropping non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) – Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Google have already started down this path

If the less restrictive candidates win, that exposure falls to 5.7 GW, mainly because Ohio and Oregon have proponents of a pause on both sides. That is a much smaller pipeline to test for delays. It would still be a tougher development environment: fewer tax breaks, more upfront commitments and less room to leave infrastructure costs with the utility’s other customers.

Source: SemiAnalysis Datacenter Industry Model

According to race ratings and available polling as of Oct. 30, from multiple sources (Cook Political Report, Multistate, and The New York Times), the conditions-only candidate is favored in Texas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Iowa, and Georgia is a toss-up. Here we take candidates’ positions at face value. It will be up to whether these promises are turned into actual policy and whether the resulting pause intervenes in a project at the wrong stage in its timeline to determine the extent of the delay.

Source: SemiAnalysis Datacenter Industry Model

As noted in our September moratoriums article, these positions are overwhelmingly bipartisan now, with many campaigning on the following three points:

• Make datacenters pay their own grid costs (15 candidates)
• End the tax breaks (12 candidates)
• Limit or report water use (11 candidates).

Source: SemiAnalysis Datacenter Industry Model

Which states are the most impacted depends on which companies are building. We interviewed six current and former employees of hyperscalers, including people who worked at Amazon, Microsoft and Google and are involved in datacenter development. Several said that hyperscalers can afford to pay the higher costs of new rules and can more easily bring or pay for their own power.

However, that doesn’t necessarily mean they will be able to deliver capacity on time. These projects still require their own permits and equipment. And having the money to pay for power transmission doesn’t make it available immediately. A moratorium can block any project that still needs approval, and it won’t be easy to shift development to another state: anywhere else would still require power, permits and construction schedules that can meet the same delivery timeline.