A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PROHIBIT GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES OF THIS STATE, COUNTIES, MUNICIPALITIES, OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS FROM GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL FOR APPLICATIONS OR PERMITS FOR, OR INCENTIVES OR OTHER REQUESTS RELATED TO, NEW DATA CENTERS UNTIL JANUARY 1, 2028, AND TO DEFINE "DATA CENTER."
H5286 is a joint resolution that would place a temporary moratorium on new data centers in South Carolina. It bars state, county, municipal, and other local governmental entities from granting final approval for applications, permits, incentives, or related requests for new data centers until January 1, 2028. The prohibition is broad and expressly covers rezoning, special exceptions, special use permits, building permits, site plans, development plans, and economic incentives, including fee-in-lieu-of-taxes arrangements.
The bill also creates a statutory definition of “data center.” Under the resolution, a data center is a facility primarily used for storing, managing, and processing digital data and housing computer/network systems, power and cooling infrastructure, internet-related equipment, data communications, environmental controls, fire protection, and security systems. The resolution would take effect upon the Governor’s approval.
If enacted, H5286 would temporarily suspend local and state approval pathways for new data center projects across South Carolina, effectively freezing permitting, rezoning, and incentive approvals until 2028. It would affect developers, utilities, local governments, economic development agencies, and property owners seeking to site or expand data center facilities, while leaving existing data centers unaffected by the text of the resolution. The measure would not permanently amend broader land-use or tax statutes, but it would override normal approval processes for the covered projects during the moratorium period.
Based on the bill title and text, the measure appears to reflect a cautious or restrictive approach toward rapid data center expansion, likely driven by concerns about land use, infrastructure demand, and public incentives. However, there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, so there is no direct evidence of support, opposition, or amendments from legislative debate. The available context suggests the bill is framed as a policy pause rather than a permanent ban.
The main point of contention is likely the breadth of the moratorium and its effect on economic development. Supporters would likely favor the pause as a way to evaluate impacts on electricity demand, water use, zoning, and local incentives before approving more projects. Opponents would likely argue that the bill could discourage investment, delay job creation, and interfere with local control and negotiated incentive packages. Because no discussion transcripts or votes are available, specific lawmakers or stakeholder groups cannot be identified from the record provided.