Anne Arundel County Council is currently debating Bill 63-26 – legislation that would place a 15-month moratorium on data center development.
As introduced, the legislation would have prohibited new privately operated data centers countywide, while protecting certain pending applications and exempting government-operated facilities. After a public hearing on the bill, County Council amended the bill to a moratorium rather than a ban on data centers. A hearing on the revised bill and a possible final vote are scheduled for October 5.
A data center ban or even an extended moratorium would mark a major departure from Anne Arundel County’s economic development history.
For decades, Anne Arundel County has built its technology economy around Fort George G. Meade, home to the National Security Agency, U.S. Cyber Command and the Defense Information Systems Agency. The presence of these agencies, along with defense contractors, researchers and cybersecurity firms, has helped establish the region as a national security technology hub supported by a cleared workforce, federal facilities and technology infrastructure.
The Anne Arundel Economic Development Corporation reports that the county now hosts more than 2,100 technology companies and approximately 23,000 technology professionals.
Even in its amended form, Bill 63-26 risks sending a contradictory message to current and prospective employers and federal agencies: Anne Arundel County supports cybersecurity, cloud computing, and other advanced technology industries, yet seeks to restrict the privately owned digital infrastructure on which those industries and agencies depend. As a result, the bill could hinder future investment, innovation, and job creation in the technology sector that county, state, and federal leaders have spent years successfully building in the county.
Residents’ concerns should not be dismissed. Large data centers can require substantial electricity, create continuous mechanical noise, use water for cooling systems, and contribute to demand for transmission lines and substations. Those impacts deserve serious review and public transparency but could be managed through thoughtful performance standards..
The council has apparently concluded that a categorical prohibition is an unnecessarily blunt response. Poorly crafted performance standards could prevent the county from distinguishing among hyperscale campuses, colocation facilities, enterprise data centers and smaller edge facilities, ultimately foreclosing substantial taxable investment, construction activity, infrastructure improvements and opportunities to diversify the county’s commercial tax base.
Local restrictions would not necessarily shield residents from regional energy impacts. Electricity markets and transmission planning cross county and state lines. Data centers developed in neighboring jurisdictions could still contribute to regional generation, transmission and rate pressures, while Anne Arundel would receive none of the associated tax revenue or privately financed improvements. Energy regulators at the state, regional, and federal levels are moving to address these issues by leveraging data center development to drive investments in electric grid expansion and new energy generation resources.
The moratorium and task force approach opens the door to better alternatives than the categorical ban initially proposed. The Council could limit data centers to selected zoning districts, federal-adjacent areas or a carefully designed overlay zone. It could establish tiered regulations based on facility size or power demand, so ordinary office server rooms are not unintentionally swept into the restriction. Larger projects could undergo case-by-case review focused on measurable impacts.
The county could require setbacks, landscaping, acoustic modeling, low-frequency and tonal-noise standards, water-use disclosure, limits on generator technologies, and testing and post-construction monitoring. Applicants could be required to demonstrate utility capacity, and that they are funding project-related upgrades as required by utility regulators. Community benefit agreements could support workforce programs, public safety or nearby infrastructure.