North Carolina: data centers & your electric bill
As of October 1, 2026, AI GridWatch tracks 44 data center moratoriums or pushback actions in North Carolina: 36 in force, 2 proposed, 6 expired, rejected or rescinded. The state has 115 tracked data center facilities using an estimated 4.5 TWh of electricity a year.
Everything GridWatch tracks in North Carolina on one page — proposed projects, moratoriums, permits, officials, and the 2026 ballot.
Subscribe by RSS — moratorium changes and community headlines for North Carolina.
As of July 2026 (3m ago) · changes over months · Source: U.S. Data Center Power Map by State — ElectricChoice.com compilation (updated July 2026; CC-BY 4.0). Underlying load research: LBNL 2024 US Data Center Energy Usage Report; rates: EIA
Facility counts vary by directory because each one draws the boundary differently — DataCenterMap lists 44 in Alabama where this table says 35, since it counts small network rooms alongside hyperscale campuses. Cite the TWh figure rather than the facility count when you can; it is the number that speaks to grid impact. Underlying load research is LBNL-2001637 (Dec 2024).
1Proposed data centers in North Carolina (8)
5 still live · 3 decided or withdrawn. Each name links to the full dossier — ownership, intelligence log, and where to read the paper trail.
| Project | Where | Size | Behind it | Stage | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Project Iron Spur | Rural Hall (Forsyth County) | 129 ac | Project Iron Spur (filing LLC) | Awaiting decision | Source read 2026-08-07 |
| CoreWeave Marble NC | Marble (Cherokee County) | 65 MW | CoreWeave | In review | Source read 2026-08-14 |
| Microsoft Person County | Person County | 1,350 ac | Microsoft | In review | Source |
| Project Delta | Walnut Cove (Stokes County) | 1,800 ac | Engineered Land Solutions (ELS) | In review | Source read 2026-08-14 |
| Terra Nexus data center campus (316 Old Cheraw Highway) | Rockingham (Richmond County) | 165 ac | Terra Nexus Land Fund I, LLC (filing LLC) | In review | Source read 2026-08-14 |
| Microsoft Catawba County | Catawba County | — | Microsoft | Under construction | Source |
| Drox Group Rural Hall | Rural Hall (Forsyth County) | 129 ac | The Drox Group | Denied | Source |
| Southeast Raleigh Data Center | Raleigh | — | — | Withdrawn | Source read 2026-08-19 |
2Pushback already happening in North Carolina
| Where | Level | Status | Note | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gates County | Local | Enactedexpires 2026-12-17 | 1-year pause, unanimous; covers all data center and crypto mining applications. Preventative — prompted by two inquiries from a data center consulting firm. County water system has been under its own moratorium since 2018 | SourceOfficial read 2026-08-13 |
| Brevard | Local | Expiredterm ran to 2026-06-23 | 90-day moratorium while city staff draft UDO text amendments. Term may have lapsed — confirm current status with the city | SourceNews read 2026-08-13 |
| Clay County | Local | Enactedno end date — permanent | Permanent ban — Ordinance No. 01.08.2026 prohibits the establishment, construction, expansion, or operation of commercial data centers in all zoning districts | SourceNews read 2026-08-13 |
| Canton | Local | Enactedexpires 2027-02-11 | 12-month pause, unanimous; covers data centers, crypto mining, and server farms. ~200 residents attended. Prompted by inquiries about the former Evergreen Packaging paper mill site | SourceNews read 2026-08-13 |
| Chatham County | Local | Enactedexpires 2027-02-11 | 12-month pause on data centers, data processing, and crypto mining in unincorporated areas; expires Feb 11, 2027 or when new zoning regulations are adopted. A developer has sued, claiming it blocks a planned 750 MW project | SourceOfficial read 2026-08-13 |
| Kings Mountain | Local | Enactedexpires 2027-08-25 | 182-day (6-month) pause, passed 5-2 Feb 24; extended a further 12 months on Aug 25, 2026 (the agenda carried 12- and 6-month options; council took the year). Planning department studying setbacks/screening, utility capacity, and noise standards | SourceRoundup read 2026-09-04 |
| Durham County | Local | Enactedexpires 2027-05-18 | 9-month pause on new or expanded data centers over 100,000 sq ft, 4-1. Exempts facilities under 100,000 sq ft that use closed-loop cooling and no diesel backup. Runs to May 18, 2027 per press reports, aligned with the City of Durham's pause; staff draft ordinance due December | SourceOfficial read 2026-09-04 |
| Whiteville | Local | Enactedexpires 2027-08-25 | 12-month moratorium on new data centers, data processing facilities and cryptocurrency mining, effective immediately and running to Aug 25, 2027 or until the city adopts a zoning text amendment for these uses, whichever comes first. Staff to draft location, size and proximity standards | SourceNews read 2026-09-05 |
| Edgecombe County | Local | Enactedexpires 2028-08-03 | 2-year moratorium, 5-0 of members present after a public hearing: no data center applications or permits accepted, processed or approved in the county's zoning jurisdiction until Aug 3, 2028. Followed Energy Storage Solutions withdrawing its Kingsboro offer | SourceNews read 2026-09-04 |
| Boone | Local | Enactedexpires 2027-03-23 | 1-year pause, unanimous (5-0); covers data centers and crypto mining within town limits. Nearly 100 residents attended in support. Council pursuing permanent regulations | SourceNews read 2026-08-13 |
| Apex | Local | Enactedexpires 2027-04-27 | 12-month pause, unanimous; effective Apr 28. Covers data centers, data processing, and crypto mining. Followed withdrawal of the 250 MW 'New Hill Digital Campus' proposal | SourceNews read 2026-08-13 |
| Orange County | Local | Enactedexpires 2027-04-21 | 1-year pause, 6-0; covers large-scale data centers including AI, crypto mining, and data processing. No large-scale data centers currently in the county | SourceOfficial read 2026-08-13 |
| Rowan County | Local | Enactedexpires 2027-05-04 | 1-year pause, unanimous; prohibits zoning or rezoning for data center purposes. Does NOT apply to the existing Long Ferry Road project (Edged Energy). 100+ residents attended; 5,200+ petition signatures | SourceNews read 2026-08-13 |
| Swain County | Local | Enactedexpires 2027-04-21 | 12-month pause, unanimous. Public hearing drew 140 residents and 34 speakers in Bryson City. Two citizen advisory committees formed to study impacts | SourceNews read 2026-08-13 |
| Watauga County | Local | Enactedexpires 2027-04-21 | 1-year pause, unanimous; suspends new data center construction county-wide. County collaborating with utilities, conservation groups, and NC DEQ on permanent regulations. Separate from the Town of Boone moratorium (Mar 23) | SourceNews read 2026-08-13 |
| Madison County | Local | Expiredterm ran to 2024-06-13 | 1-year moratorium on data processing facilities including crypto mining and large server farms, passed unanimously. Would have expired ~Jun 2024; no extension or replacement ordinance found. Confirm current status with the county before citing as active | SourceNews read 2026-08-13 |
| Clyde | Local | Enactedno end date — permanent | Permanent ban — Board of Aldermen voted unanimously to amend the zoning ordinance to prohibit data centers in all zoning districts. Proactive; no specific proposal was pending | SourceNews read 2026-08-13 |
| Holly Springs | Local | Enactedexpires 2027-06-16 | 1-year pause on data center construction | SourceNews read 2026-08-04 |
| Charlotte | Local | Enactedexpires soon — 2026-11-05 | An earlier version deadlocked 5-5 with one member absent in Jun 2025 and failed. Reintroduced amid continued community pressure and passed 11-0 on Jun 8, 2026: 150-day moratorium on new data center applications, running through Nov 5, 2026; already-approved projects are unaffected | SourceNews read 2026-09-02 |
| Durham | Local | Enactedexpires 2027-06-15 | 60-day moratorium passed unanimously May 5, extended to 12 months on Jun 15. Covers data centers, data processing, and crypto mining. Council first amended the UDO to remove the local cap on moratorium length | SourceNews read 2026-08-13 |
| Harnett County | Local | Enactedexpires 2027-05-03 | 1-year pause, unanimous; unincorporated areas. ~75 minutes of public comment with no speakers in favour of data centers. County Manager cited water/electricity consumption concerns | SourceNews read 2026-08-13 |
| Cumberland County | Local | Enactedexpires 2026-12-15 | 6-month pause, 7-0; unincorporated areas only. Staff developing a data center ordinance with town halls in Aug and draft in Sep. Does not reach proposals seeking annexation into Fayetteville | SourceNews read 2026-08-13 |
| Fayetteville | Local | Rejectedterm not documented | Moratorium motion failed 5-5 on Aug 10; council voted 7-3 to pursue regulatory ordinance revisions instead, targeted for late Oct 2026. Cumberland County's 6-month moratorium covers unincorporated areas but not the city | SourceNews read 2026-08-13 |
| Greensboro | Local | Enactedexpires 2027-02-14 | 180-day pause on applications for data centers with electrical demand above 10 MW, 8-0 with one recusal, after a hearing at which residents asked for 32 months. Council had voted 5-4 on Jul 21 against starting the process, then reversed; the 120-day draft was lengthened to 180 after public input. Runs to mid-February 2027 | SourceNews read 2026-09-05 |
| Farmville | Local | Enactedexpires 2027-08-03 | 12-month moratorium on data-center development, approved unanimously by the town's Board of Commissioners to allow staff time to research impacts and draft ordinance language, after East Energy Renewables (headquartered in Farmville) pitched a data-center network to town leaders in February. | SourceNews read 2026-08-12 |
| Waxhaw | Local | Enactedexpires 2027-08-11 | 12-month moratorium, unanimous; covers data centers, crypto mining, and related digital infrastructure. Preemptive — no proposals pending | SourceNews read 2026-08-13 |
| Statesville | Local | Proposedterm not documented | 180-day moratorium passed first reading; second reading scheduled Sep 14, 2026. No new data centers planned but city has received inquiries and the UDC does not address data centers | SourceNews read 2026-08-13 |
| Asheville | Local | Enactedexpires 2027-06-17 | 1-year moratorium covering all data centers regardless of size. City drafting zoning laws. Intensive impacts on local electric and water utilities, noise, and heat | SourceNews read 2026-08-13 |
| Wendell | Local | Enactedexpires 2026-12-31 | Moratorium through Dec 31, 2026. Preemptive — no data center applications filed. Pause for leaders to learn about impacts | SourceNews read 2026-08-13 |
| Davie County | Local | Enactedexpires 2027-07-07 | 1-year moratorium, unanimous, after a two-hour public comment period on water use and health concerns | SourceNews read 2026-08-23 |
| Alamance County | Local | Enactedexpires 2027-08-17 | 1-year moratorium, 5-0, on large-scale data centers — defined as developments needing 10 MW or more — after a two-hour public hearing at which more than 23 residents spoke for the pause | SourceNews read 2026-08-23 |
| Yadkin County | Local | Enactedexpires 2028-08-17 | 2-year moratorium, 5-0 after a public hearing — commissioners doubled the 12 months on the agenda following an hour of opposition testimony. Covers unincorporated areas ONLY: the county manager confirmed at the hearing it does not reach incorporated towns, so WhiteFiber's Yadkinville campus on the former Unifi properties is outside it. The report dates the vote to 'Monday' of the week it published; Aug 17 is that Monday | SourceNews read 2026-08-23 |
| Stokes County | Local | Rejectedterm not documented | Commissioners rejected the six-month moratorium their own planning board had recommended, after months of organised opposition; Commissioner Sonya Cox said a formal pause was not necessary. The county instead added data centers as an allowed use in M-2 Heavy Manufacturing conditional zoning. A separate Aug 13 planning board vote denied a data center rezoning in Walnut Cove 5-2. Sources disagree on the vote date (reported as both Mon Jul 14 — a Tuesday — and Jul 15), so only the month is recorded. Listed because neighbouring counties' coverage has repeatedly described Stokes as having passed a pause; it did not | SourceNews read 2026-08-23 |
| Surry County | County | Enactedexpires 2028-07-21 | 2-year moratorium replacing earlier 60-day pause from June 2026. Steering committee appointed to study impacts. Unanimous vote. | SourceNews read 2026-09-06 |
| Wilson | City | Enactedexpires 2027-05-21 | 1-year moratorium on large data center development approvals. Unanimous vote. UDO text amendments to follow. | SourceNews read 2026-09-06 |
| Davidson County | County | Rejectedterm not documented | Board of Commissioners split 3-3 on a proposed six-month moratorium on new data center development applications, so the moratorium was not adopted. One commissioner was absent. | SourceNews read 2026-09-06 |
| McDowell County | County | Enactedexpires 2027-02-11 | Board of Commissioners unanimously approved a six-month moratorium on data center development following a special meeting and public hearing where residents raised concerns about water consumption during drought conditions. No data center project has been proposed in the county. | SourceNews read 2026-09-06 |
| Cary | Local | Enactedexpires 2028-02-28 | 18-month moratorium on all data center development, unanimously approved. Studies power demand, water consumption, noise/vibration, site design. Longest moratorium in the Triangle. | SourceNews read 2026-09-11 |
| Boiling Spring Lakes | Local | Enactedexpires 2027-06-02 | 12-month moratorium on data centers, data processing facilities, and cryptocurrency mining. Proactive measure with no prior developer proposals. | SourceNews read 2026-09-11 |
| Spring Hope | Local | Enactedterm not documented | 1-year moratorium on data centers. Resolution 2026-01, unanimous vote. Town in Nash County. | SourceNews read 2026-09-11 |
| Franklin | Local | Enactedterm not documented | 1-year moratorium on data centers. Macon County mountain community, part of western NC moratorium wave. | SourceRoundup read 2026-09-11 |
| Northampton County | County | Enactedterm not documented | 32-month moratorium on data centers; among the longest local moratoriums in the state. | SourceNews read 2026-09-11 |
| Hendersonville | Local | Proposedterm not documented | Proposed 12-month moratorium on data center building, zoning, and special use permits. City attorney cited outdated ordinance. Public hearing held September 3; outcome not yet confirmed. | SourceNews read 2026-09-11 |
| Lee County | County | Under Reviewterm not documented | Commissioners voted 6-1 to draft moratorium language but rejected an immediate moratorium on Aug 18. Citizen petition with 2,500+ signatures for 180-day moratorium submitted for Sept 21 agenda. | SourceNews read 2026-09-11 |
As of August 2026 (2m ago) · changes weekly — re-check before citing
Illustrative rather than exhaustive — dozens of localities churn weekly, and this tracks the ones we have read a source for. **Each row carries its own provenance.** Rows showing a verification date link to the ordinance, the enacting body's own page, or a datable report of the vote, and were read on that date. Rows marked *unverified* came from bulk compilation and have not been checked against a primary source — the locality, the year, and the status may all be off. Verify one of those with the town clerk before citing it as precedent. **Expiry is derived, not asserted.** A row with a documented end date flips to *Expired* on its own once that date passes. A time-limited moratorium whose start date was never documented keeps showing as enacted — that is a known gap, not a claim that it is still in force. Moratoriums are also routinely extended, so an expiry date is the earliest it could have ended, not proof that it did.
3Other North Carolina communities in the news (1)
Places with archived data-center coverage but no moratorium on file. Grouped automatically from headlines and not verified — a lead worth reading, not a claim to cite.
- Richmond County — 4 archived headlines
4Known data center campuses in North Carolina
| Operator | Location | Tenant | Filing LLC |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lenoir | Land-acquisition shells: Jet Stream LLC, Sharka LLC | ||
| Meta | Forest City | Meta | Codename shells: Greater Kudu, Raven Northbrook, Stadion, Wobniar, Pinnacle Mountain |
| Microsoft | Maiden (Catawba Co.) | Microsoft | Project-name / generic 'Holdings LLC'; less consistently codenamed |
| Amazon (AWS) | Richmond County (Rockingham) | Amazon (AWS) | Vadata, Inc. — AWS's build/operating entity on many permits |
⏳ No verification date recorded · changes over months · Source: Operator ownership & filing-LLC naming patterns — compiled from operator releases and county filings, then checked against SEC EDGAR full-text search. Composite, not a single citation: look the entity up yourself before naming it in a filing
Each row carries its own attribution level — first-party rows come from the operator's own site, but colocation and REIT ownership was compiled from trade press and never passed an independent fact-check. Check the attribution column before citing a row.
5Every data center already built in North Carolina
The campuses above are the ones GridWatch tracks by operator and filing LLC. For the full inventory — street addresses of every existing facility, including the smaller colocation and network sites — DataCenterMap keeps a public directory for North Carolina.
Browse the North Carolina directory →
Two caveats before you cite it at a hearing: it lists facilities that already exist, so a newly proposed campus will not appear; and it counts a small network room the same as a hyperscale campus, so the facility count is not a measure of power draw or community impact.
6What North Carolina's own study found
North Carolina Energy Policy Task Force — Interim Report (February 2026)
NC Energy Policy Task Force (Gov. Josh Stein, Executive Order No. 23)
The governor's task force found data centers driving much of North Carolina's projected load growth, warned of cost-shifting to other ratepayers, and made nine preliminary recommendations.
- Load growth: Total net load on Duke's two NC systems is projected to rise 16%–60% over 15 years, versus just 7% statewide over the prior two decades — a large share driven by data centers and other large loads.
- Cost-shifting warning: Meeting large-load growth needs new generation and transmission that 'could increase rates on all customers unless the primary users of new infrastructure bear the cost burden.'
- No reliable data-center data: The report finds 'there is not reliable public data for the total number and size of existing and proposed data centers in North Carolina,' leaving a historically wide range in load forecasts.
- Concentrated demand: Data centers are about 30% of Duke's economic-development pipeline but roughly 80% of its projected demand (a Duke figure reproduced in the report), while residential bills rose ~30% from 2017–2024 — nearly two-thirds of that from fuel costs.
- Carbon target: North Carolina's statutory target (HB 951, 2021) requires Duke generation to be carbon-neutral by 2050; the report finds load growth may challenge that target but, with the right policies, could be an opportunity to build more carbon-free power.
- Two data-center-specific asks: Of nine preliminary recommendations, two target data centers directly — reviewing the value of their sales-and-use tax exemptions, and requiring energy and water usage reporting.
Read the report · read 2026-08-15
7Your regulator
North Carolina Utilities Commission — website · file a complaint
Official state energy data: EIA North Carolina electricity profile — generation, prices, and consumption from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
8Where the North Carolina paper trail lives
Air & environmental permits: North Carolina DEQ — Division of Air Quality
No searchable register. North Carolina does not publish a permit database you can query. A public-records request to the agency is the only route to the file.
Grid interconnection queue: PJM Interconnection (Mid-Atlantic, Ohio Valley)
A routing hint only — several states are split between markets, and the serving utility is the only authority on which queue a given site is in.
These are places to look, not evidence that anything has been filed. Links were checked on 2026-08-21; search links are queries, not records.
9Your federal delegation and governor
Grades cross party — this is an issue axis, not a partisan one. A blank grade means no documented action was located, never that the official is neutral.
| Grade | Official | Documented action (sourced) | Reach them |
|---|---|---|---|
| — | Josh Stein Democratic · Governor | No documented action on data centers located | site · contact |
| — | Ted Budd Republican · Senator · next on the ballot 2028 | No documented action on data centers located Accelerate Calls for permitting reform and more power generation to meet data-center demand, says siting decisions belong at the local level, and was skeptical of a data-center moratorium. sources | site · contact |
| — | Thom Tillis Republican · Senator · on the 2026 ballot | No documented action on data centers located | site · contact |
| — | Donald G. Davis Democratic · Representative 1 | No documented action on data centers located | site · contact |
| — | Pat Harrigan Republican · Representative 10 | No documented action on data centers located | site · contact |
| — | Chuck Edwards Republican · Representative 11 | No documented action on data centers located | site · contact |
| — | Alma S. Adams Democratic · Representative 12 | No documented action on data centers located | site · contact |
| — | Brad Knott Republican · Representative 13 | No documented action on data centers located | site · contact |
| — | Tim Moore Republican · Representative 14 | No documented action on data centers located | site · contact |
| — | Deborah K. Ross Democratic · Representative 2 | No documented action on data centers located | site · contact |
| — | Gregory F. Murphy Republican · Representative 3 | No documented action on data centers located | site · contact |
| — | Valerie P. Foushee Democratic · Representative 4 | No documented action on data centers located | site · contact |
| — | Virginia Foxx Republican · Representative 5 | No documented action on data centers located | site · contact |
| — | Addison P. McDowell Republican · Representative 6 | No documented action on data centers located | site · contact |
| — | David Rouzer Republican · Representative 7 | No documented action on data centers located | site · contact |
| — | Mark Harris Republican · Representative 8 | No documented action on data centers located | site · contact |
| — | Richard Hudson Republican · Representative 9 | No documented action on data centers located | site · contact |
Roster: regenerated by scripts/refresh_officials.py (Senate XML + congress-legislators + current governors).
Write to your senators → Your senators in detail → Full officials scorecard → Find your state legislators →
102026 U.S. Senate race
PVI R+1 · Seat held by Thom Tillis (Republican) · Incumbent retiring
Michael Whatley (Republican) Accelerate
Called data-center opposition “not organic” and backs tax breaks for developers; reported to hold stock in data-center companies.
- Told a Fox News interview that “this opposition to data centers is not organic”, and agreed governments should offer developers tax breaks, though not subsidies, to encourage expansion. (2026-07 — source)
- Reported by NBC News to back data-center tax breaks while owning stock in data-center companies. (2026 — source)
Tech & utility PAC money: $17,500 from 2 committees (FEC, cycle 2026, pulled 2026-08-26) — FEC record
Record read 2026-08-25.
Roy Cooper (Democratic) No record found
No documented statement or action on data centers located. Not scored — see how this page treats silence.
Tech & utility PAC money: $7,500 from 1 committees (FEC, cycle 2026, pulled 2026-08-26) — FEC record
Shannon Bray (Libertarian) No record found
No documented statement or action on data centers located. Not scored — see how this page treats silence.
Ballot roster: state candidate list (read 2026-08-25).
112026 U.S. House races in North Carolina (14)
A documented data-center record exists in 13 of 14 districts. A candidate with no badge colour has said nothing we could locate — that is a gap in the record, not a neutral position. ★ marks an incumbent.
| District | PVI | Incumbent | Candidates |
|---|---|---|---|
| NC-1 | R+5 | Don Davis | Don Davis ★ Laurie Buckhout Tom Bailey |
| NC-2 | D+17 | Deborah Ross | Deborah Ross ★ Eugene Douglass Matthew Laszacs |
| NC-3 | R+6 | Greg Murphy | Greg Murphy ★ Raymond Smith Jr. Daniel Cavender |
| NC-4 | D+23 | Valerie Foushee | Valerie Foushee ★ Max Ganorkar Guy Meilleur |
| NC-5 | R+9 | Virginia Foxx | Virginia Foxx ★ Chuck Hubbard Robert Luffman |
| NC-6 | R+9 | Addison McDowell | Addison McDowell ★ Cyril Jefferson |
| NC-7 | R+7 | David Rouzer | David Rouzer ★ Kimberly Hardy Maad Abu-Ghazalah |
| NC-8 | R+10 | Mark Harris | Mark Harris ★ Colby Watson |
| NC-9 | R+8 | Richard Hudson | Richard Hudson ★ Richard Ojeda |
| NC-10 | R+9 | Pat Harrigan | Pat Harrigan ★ Ashley Bell Steve Feldman |
| NC-11 | R+5 | Chuck Edwards | Jamie Ager Jennifer Balkcom Travis Groo |
| NC-12 | D+24 | Alma Adams | Alma Adams ★ Jack Codiga |
| NC-13 | R+8 | Brad Knott | Brad Knott ★ Paul Barringer Steven Swinton |
| NC-14 | R+8 | Tim Moore | Tim Moore ★ Lakesha Womack |
The documented records (13 districts)
NC-1
Don Davis (Democratic) · incumbent Consensus vote only
On the record only for voting yes on H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act (417-3). No other data-center record located yet.
- Voted yes on H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act, which passed 417-3 (roll call 312). It directs state utility commissions to consider rate designs making data centers with 100 MW or more of peak demand at one site pay the full incremental cost of the generation and grid upgrades they require. A near-unanimous vote: shown on the record, not scored on its own. (2026-09-16 — source)
Record read 2026-09-22.
NC-2
Deborah Ross (Democratic) · incumbent Consensus vote only
On the record only for voting yes on H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act (417-3). No other data-center record located yet.
- Voted yes on H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act, which passed 417-3 (roll call 312). It directs state utility commissions to consider rate designs making data centers with 100 MW or more of peak demand at one site pay the full incremental cost of the generation and grid upgrades they require. A near-unanimous vote: shown on the record, not scored on its own. (2026-09-16 — source)
Record read 2026-09-22.
NC-3
Greg Murphy (Republican) · incumbent Consensus vote only
On the record only for voting yes on H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act (417-3). No other data-center record located yet.
- Voted yes on H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act, which passed 417-3 (roll call 312). It directs state utility commissions to consider rate designs making data centers with 100 MW or more of peak demand at one site pay the full incremental cost of the generation and grid upgrades they require. A near-unanimous vote: shown on the record, not scored on its own. (2026-09-16 — source)
Record read 2026-09-22.
NC-4
Valerie Foushee (Democratic) · incumbent Mixed
Raised concerns about data center environmental impacts; led bipartisan HR 9372 (data center energy/water measurement standards, passed committee 34-1).
- Led HR 9372, the Data Infrastructure Energy Measurement and Standards Act, authorizing NIST and DOE to establish measurement standards for data center energy and water use including AI training; passed House Science Committee 34-1. (2026-06-01 — source)
- Voted yes on H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act, which passed 417-3 (roll call 312). It directs state utility commissions to consider rate designs making data centers with 100 MW or more of peak demand at one site pay the full incremental cost of the generation and grid upgrades they require. A near-unanimous vote: shown on the record, not scored on its own. (2026-09-16 — source)
Record read 2026-09-11.
NC-5
Virginia Foxx (Republican) · incumbent Consensus vote only
On the record only for voting yes on H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act (417-3). No other data-center record located yet.
- Voted yes on H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act, which passed 417-3 (roll call 312). It directs state utility commissions to consider rate designs making data centers with 100 MW or more of peak demand at one site pay the full incremental cost of the generation and grid upgrades they require. A near-unanimous vote: shown on the record, not scored on its own. (2026-09-16 — source)
Record read 2026-09-22.
NC-6
Addison McDowell (Republican) · incumbent Consensus vote only
On the record only for voting yes on H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act (417-3). No other data-center record located yet.
- Voted yes on H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act, which passed 417-3 (roll call 312). It directs state utility commissions to consider rate designs making data centers with 100 MW or more of peak demand at one site pay the full incremental cost of the generation and grid upgrades they require. A near-unanimous vote: shown on the record, not scored on its own. (2026-09-16 — source)
Record read 2026-09-22.
NC-7
David Rouzer (Republican) · incumbent Consensus vote only
On the record only for voting yes on H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act (417-3). No other data-center record located yet.
- Voted yes on H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act, which passed 417-3 (roll call 312). It directs state utility commissions to consider rate designs making data centers with 100 MW or more of peak demand at one site pay the full incremental cost of the generation and grid upgrades they require. A near-unanimous vote: shown on the record, not scored on its own. (2026-09-16 — source)
Record read 2026-09-22.
NC-8
Mark Harris (Republican) · incumbent Consensus vote only
On the record only for voting yes on H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act (417-3). No other data-center record located yet.
- Voted yes on H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act, which passed 417-3 (roll call 312). It directs state utility commissions to consider rate designs making data centers with 100 MW or more of peak demand at one site pay the full incremental cost of the generation and grid upgrades they require. A near-unanimous vote: shown on the record, not scored on its own. (2026-09-16 — source)
Record read 2026-09-22.
NC-9
Richard Hudson (Republican) · incumbent Consensus vote only
On the record only for voting yes on H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act (417-3). No other data-center record located yet.
- Voted yes on H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act, which passed 417-3 (roll call 312). It directs state utility commissions to consider rate designs making data centers with 100 MW or more of peak demand at one site pay the full incremental cost of the generation and grid upgrades they require. A near-unanimous vote: shown on the record, not scored on its own. (2026-09-16 — source)
Record read 2026-09-22.
NC-10
Pat Harrigan (Republican) · incumbent Consensus vote only
On the record only for voting yes on H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act (417-3). No other data-center record located yet.
- Voted yes on H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act, which passed 417-3 (roll call 312). It directs state utility commissions to consider rate designs making data centers with 100 MW or more of peak demand at one site pay the full incremental cost of the generation and grid upgrades they require. A near-unanimous vote: shown on the record, not scored on its own. (2026-09-16 — source)
Record read 2026-09-22.
NC-12
Alma Adams (Democratic) · incumbent Consensus vote only
On the record only for voting yes on H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act (417-3). No other data-center record located yet.
- Voted yes on H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act, which passed 417-3 (roll call 312). It directs state utility commissions to consider rate designs making data centers with 100 MW or more of peak demand at one site pay the full incremental cost of the generation and grid upgrades they require. A near-unanimous vote: shown on the record, not scored on its own. (2026-09-16 — source)
Record read 2026-09-22.
NC-13
Brad Knott (Republican) · incumbent Consensus vote only
On the record only for voting yes on H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act (417-3). No other data-center record located yet.
- Voted yes on H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act, which passed 417-3 (roll call 312). It directs state utility commissions to consider rate designs making data centers with 100 MW or more of peak demand at one site pay the full incremental cost of the generation and grid upgrades they require. A near-unanimous vote: shown on the record, not scored on its own. (2026-09-16 — source)
Record read 2026-09-22.
NC-14
Tim Moore (Republican) · incumbent Consensus vote only
On the record only for voting yes on H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act (417-3). No other data-center record located yet.
- Voted yes on H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act, which passed 417-3 (roll call 312). It directs state utility commissions to consider rate designs making data centers with 100 MW or more of peak demand at one site pay the full incremental cost of the generation and grid upgrades they require. A near-unanimous vote: shown on the record, not scored on its own. (2026-09-16 — source)
Record read 2026-09-22.
12Latest North Carolina data center news
No North Carolina data-center headlines in this week's national scan — local coverage often runs ahead of it.
Search live North Carolina data center news → GridWatch news feed →
A data center was proposed near you?
The free toolkit walks you through it in five steps: who's really behind the LLC, what it costs your community, what to do this week, and a downloadable action pack — speech, letters, flyer, and CBA targets included.
State municipal league: North Carolina League of Municipalities