A pause on new data centers in Reno was a significant win for data center opponents, who have long argued to city council members that the environmental effects of the developments outweigh potential benefits. 

But even though they supported Thursday's decision — a Nevada local government's most significant response yet to the increasingly divisive industry — they say the work is nowhere near done.

"A moratorium is only as good as the regulations that are adopted," said Olivia Tanager, the director of the Sierra Club Toiyabe Chapter, which has called for Reno to pump the brakes on data center permitting for more than a year.

This pause is only in effect for up to 30 days. That's because it was the first time the council approved one, so there will be a vote on June 1 for it to last until a designated period of time.

Even among council members who supported the moratorium, there are disagreements about how to proceed. Some council members say Reno should work with regional governments in Sparks and Washoe County for a unified approach to data center regulation. But others think Reno should act now.

Northern Nevada is an attractive place for data centers because of its affordable land and friendly tax environment. Since December 2024, three data centers — run by Colovore, Oppidan and Centra — have received approval from Reno officials. 

These are smaller facilities than others in the state, but can still use considerable energy. One data center approved by the council, for example, is set to use as much power as anywhere from 11,000 to 26,000 homes do in one year.

Across the country, 69 local governments have enacted data center moratoriums, according to an online tracker from a company involved in the AI economy. Some led to regulations or permanent bans, and 50 are still active.

Under Reno's existing processes, a data center's request for a permit must be approved by the city's planning commission. If the planning commission rejects it or the decision is appealed, it will head to the city council. 

The city cannot accept any permits for data centers under a moratorium. Data centers face the same requirements as warehouses under city code. Last month, the city council instructed staff to come up with potential rule changes for data centers alongside the rest of the region.

Councilmember Devon Reese, who proposed the moratorium last month, suggested during Thursday's meeting adding a checklist to the permitting process that would include water and power impact studies. He also wants to require community benefits agreements, including partnerships with local colleges, and tying incentives to performance, such as hiring.

So far, the jury is out on what comes next, but a key clue will be forthcoming recommendations from Northern Nevada officials who have researched the topic on a regional level for more than a year. Some council members point to these suggestions as the driving force behind any future action. 

And then there's elections. Of the six city council members who approved the pause on Thursday, three are either up for re-election or not running again — meaning the council dynamic could look a lot different depending on how long it takes for changes to be approved.

Does it have to be the same as other governments?

Council member Meghan Ebert, who supported the pause and represents the city ward with the largest area zoned for industrial development, thinks the city shouldn't wait for other localities to act.

She told The Indy she got sustainability features added to a data center approved last year, but that these sorts of requirements should be enshrined in city regulations so that companies know what to expect.

"It's not a good process, and we should have things in code," she said.

But others think any overriding rules affecting data centers should be done in tandem with the City of Sparks and Washoe County. 

"Then you just create a race at the bottom of the things that I actually want to see, which are good data centers," Reese said.

Getting everyone on the same page will be a challenge.

The Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency, whose staff are putting the regional recommendations together, does not have the power to issue region-wide rules on data centers. Instead, it is up to local governments to approve them.

"I do think that it would be very unwise for either the City of Sparks or the county not to adopt the best practices that we've all worked on together," Reese said. He added Reno "should lead" on the issue if other local governments do not support the suggestions.

Termed out council member Naomi Duerr, who supported the moratorium, said in an interview that the city should not wait for the report to come out, and that there's no guarantee the other regional governments will ultimately agree.

"It's hard enough to get seven council members and the mayor to agree, never mind all the people from all the region to agree on one answer." she said. "They have aggregated a lot of information already. There is no reason that we should wait until they have their final report."

At Thursday's city council meeting, Mayor Hillary Schieve indicated that the council would look to address it regionally.

"It's probably going to be the best possible outcome so that we are supporting each other," she said.

Other recommendations are also on the table. The Sierra Club, for example, has released its own set of best practices.

The organization wants to require data center companies to foot the bill for all infrastructure costs. It also says data centers using a lot of power should have to pay a fee based on their environmental impacts and contribute to a "community resilience fund" that supports areas such as parks and eco-friendly initiatives.

The Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, a nonprofit that advocates for clean energy, does not have a stance on a data center pause but has pushed for myriad policy changes, including more transparency on water and energy use. 

The election effect

Up to four of the six members of the council who supported the moratorium could lose their seats in this year's election.

Duerr and Schieve are termed out, Ebert is running for re-election and Reese is running for mayor. Councilmember Kathleen Taylor, who was one of two votes against the pause, is also running for mayor.

"I think it's bad business, I think it's lazy. I think thoughtful, predictable conversations with our regional partners — that's leadership," said Taylor.

At a Reno City Council meeting last month, the hope was the regional recommendations on regulating data centers would be done in August. But that's no sure thing, said Jeremy Smith, the director of regional planning for the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Association.

"I'm not guaranteeing that we're gonna hit that, we're shooting for that," Smith said.

Duerr said she wants to act fast, but her impending departure is not a factor.

"The time is now because the issue is now," she said. "And in fact, we're a year overdue."

Why there's angst

Moratorium advocates worry nothing substantive will change in part because of how it started in the first place. 

Reese, who once opposed the idea, was the one to suggest the pause last month, surprising several advocates who thought it was because he was running for mayor.

"I certainly am not in favor of a moratorium, as one of my colleagues suggested, I think that's better left to the state," he said at a January 2025 council meeting.

In an interview with The Indy, Reese denied the decision was political. He said he has remained consistent on the issue and only opposed a moratorium last year because there were already data centers under consideration, though he did not give that reason at the time.

"It wasn't a change in policy, it wasn't some ploy to get some election result," he said. "Right now we have a window for which the question of a moratorium can be legitimate and legally asked."

However, the timing of Reese's announcement drew skepticism as there haven't been any data centers under consideration since late September. Reese said the time period between now and September is "a nothing burger" in terms of local government time.

"It just feels like virtue signaling right before a primary election," Ebert said.

Duerr said the timing was "inauspicious," but she said the council should still do its normal work in election season. 

"Should we just stop working because people don't like the optics? I don't think so," she said. "I believe people can evolve and change their position."

At a city council meeting last month, Reese said his push for a pause came after he saw the Sierra Club strongly propose one days earlier, but that caught the club off guard.

"We were pretty flabbergasted to say the least," Tanager said.

For his part, Reese said that his position evolved as he learned more.

"Isn't that what you want an elected official to do is to say, 'Okay, my position may have been this six months ago, six days ago, six hours ago, but new information has been presented, and that new information is really like the pulse and tenor of what people are feeling,'" he said.