California data center moratoriums and bills: 23 local…

California has 23 data center moratoriums on our national tracker — from the Imperial Valley floor to the San Francisco Bay. The wave is not as large numerically as New Jersey's 72 or Michigan's 64, but what California lacks in count it makes up in range: a permanent ban enacted by popular vote, a state legislative package with no equivalent anywhere in the country, and a governor who sided with the industry a year ago and now has to decide whether to do it again.

The map

Our California moratorium tracker lists 23 rows across four distinct geographic clusters:

The Imperial Valley. Four cities in one of the country's poorest, hottest, most water-stressed regions have acted within weeks of each other. Imperial County enacted a countywide moratorium in June 2026. Calipatria went further — the city council voted 3-2 in July to permanently ban data centers, making it the first Imperial Valley city to do so. The City of Imperial extended its moratorium through May 2027. And Indio, in the Coachella Valley, has its own pause running through October.

Rep. Raul Ruiz (CA-25), who represents much of the valley, submitted a letter to the Imperial County Board of Supervisors opposing the proposed data center campus: "I unequivocally oppose data centers in Imperial Valley." He announced plans to send letters to the EPA and DOE seeking federal environmental review.

The San Gabriel Valley. Monterey Park set the national template by becoming the first U.S. city to permanently ban data centers via ballot measure — 86% yes on June 3, 2026. Four neighboring cities followed. El Monte extended its moratorium through February 2027. Baldwin Park enacted a one-year urgency moratorium on April 16, citing the San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Basin. Alhambra went further — the council banned data centers in office and industrial zones by ordinance (effective August 1), then placed Measure DB on the November 3 ballot to extend the ban to all zones and lock it into the city charter. Montebello passed a 45-day pause that expired without extension. Five cities in a row, all triggered by a single proposed facility in Monterey Park.

The Central Valley. Patterson in Stanislaus County extended its moratorium through July 2027 (Ordinance Nos. 889 and 890), citing water — the city faces state requirements to reduce groundwater pumping. Tulare County enacted a 45-day pause in August. Fresno's city council voted 7-0 to begin drafting a 10-year prohibition, though no emergency moratorium is in place yet.

The Bay Area and beyond. Oakley in Contra Costa County has a moratorium running through April 2027. Morgan Hill in Santa Clara County unanimously approved a 45-day pause on August 26 covering both data centers and grid-scale battery storage. Lake Elsinore in Riverside County approved its own 45-day moratorium the day before. On the North Coast, Eureka, Mendocino County, and Humboldt County have all acted.

The state package

What makes California's wave different from Ohio's or Michigan's is what the legislature did with it. On August 31, 2026 — the last day of the session — both chambers passed seven data center bills and sent them to Governor Newsom. He has until the end of September to sign or veto each one. Together they form the most comprehensive state-level data center regulatory package in the country.

SB 887 is the centerpiece. Authored by Sen. Steve Padilla, it prohibits categorical CEQA exemptions for data center projects — meaning every project statewide would require at minimum an initial study and either a full environmental impact report, a negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration. No more ministerial approvals. It passed the Senate 29-9.

SB 886 and AB 2383 create a dedicated tariff for large-load customers with peak demand at or above 75 MW, ensuring data centers pay their own transmission, distribution, and generation costs. SB 886, also from Padilla, passed the Senate 28-10.

SB 1168, from Sen. Jerry McNerney, directs the CPUC to ensure data centers pay their fair share of transmission and distribution costs. It passed the Senate 38-0.

AB 2469 bars local governments from approving new data centers unless the developer discloses water plans and covers the full cost of any new water infrastructure the facility requires.

AB 2619, from Assemblymember Diane Papan, requires data center operators to report water sources and usage under penalty of perjury when seeking or renewing a business license.

That last bill is the one that tells the story.

The 2025 veto and the 2026 question

In October 2025, Governor Newsom vetoed AB 93 — a bill by the same Assemblymember Papan requiring data center operators to disclose their expected water use when applying for a business license. It was a disclosure requirement. No limits, no caps, no denial of permits. Just tell the public how much water you plan to use.

Newsom's veto message: "I am reluctant to impose rigid reporting requirements about operational details on this sector without understanding the full impact on businesses and the consumers of their technology."

The same session, he signed SB 57, a study mandate directing the CPUC to examine data center electricity impacts on ratepayers. No teeth — findings not even due until January 2027.

That was the state of California data center policy twelve months ago: one study, one veto, and a governor who framed a water disclosure requirement as too burdensome.

Now the same governor has seven bills on his desk. AB 2619, which Papan rewrote and reintroduced, is nearly identical to the bill he vetoed. SB 887 goes far beyond anything he was asked to sign in 2025 — it would require full environmental review for every data center in the state. And the political ground has shifted: Monterey Park's 86% ban, 23 local moratoriums, and a congressional delegation that is now on the record.

The federal delegation

Two California members have taken significant action at the federal level.

Rep. Mike Levin (CA-49) introduced the SHIELD Act (H.R. 7066), creating a separate rate class for large energy users over 75 MW — a federal counterpart to what SB 886 does at the state level. He also co-introduced the Energy Bills Relief Act (H.R. 7977) and cosponsored the Responsible Data Center Siting Act (H.R. 10321).

Sen. Adam Schiff co-signed a November 2025 letter to FERC Chair Laura Swett urging the commission to prevent data centers from hiking energy costs for families, then introduced the Energy Cost Fairness and Reliability Act in May 2026.

What to watch

Newsom's deadline is the end of September. If he signs SB 887, California becomes the first state to require environmental review for every data center project statewide — a stronger position than any of the 23 local moratoriums on their own. If he vetoes it, the local moratoriums become the only line of defense, and several of them expire within weeks.

Five California moratoriums expire before the end of October: Tulare County on October 2, Calaveras County on October 9, Lake Elsinore on October 9, Morgan Hill on October 10, and Escondido on October 12. Whether those communities extend, let lapse, or convert to permanent zoning will depend in part on what Sacramento does first.

San Francisco Supervisor Shamann Walton is expected to introduce a 45-day data center moratorium on September 15. And Fresno is drafting a 10-year prohibition. The wave is still building.

For communities in an active moratorium: our Start here wizard walks through what to negotiate before the clock runs out.