Get started free →
HR 9262 119th Congress · House

Bill to Protect Local Zoning Power Over Data Centers

Advocate

Official title: To protect the authority of local governments to make zoning decisions regarding data center development, and to require community benefit agreements as a condition for Federal tax incentives.

This bill would preserve local governments’ authority to make zoning decisions for data center development and tie federal tax incentives to community benefit agreements. In practical terms, it would give counties, cities, and towns more leverage over where data centers can be built and what conditions developers must meet. It also would make federal tax benefits contingent on agreements that spell out local benefits such as jobs, infrastructure support, or other community commitments. The measure mainly affects data center developers, local governments, nearby residents, and communities competing to host large digital infrastructure projects.

  • Protects local zoning authority over data center development.
  • Conditions federal tax incentives on a community benefit agreement.
  • Applies to data center projects seeking federal tax advantages.
  • Aims to secure local commitments such as jobs, infrastructure, or mitigation.
Public Relevance 24 / 100
Niche Modest scope Broad

If you live in a community where a data center is proposed, this bill would give your local government stronger leverage over zoning and could help secure community benefits before a project gets federal tax incentives. That could mean more local input on siting, traffic, noise, utility impacts, and possible compensation or infrastructure commitments from the developer. If you are a developer or a community hoping to attract investment quickly, the added agreement requirement could make projects slower and more expensive to close.

See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysis
FOR
  • Local governments Cities and counties want to preserve control over land use, infrastructure, and neighborhood impacts. They would argue that local officials are best positioned to balance economic development with residents’ concerns.
  • Nearby residents and community groups People living near proposed sites often bear the costs of noise, traffic, water use, and utility strain. They would support requiring community benefit agreements so projects deliver tangible local gains, not just private profits.
  • Construction and local labor interests Community benefit agreements can create clearer commitments for local hiring, training, and related work. Supporters would say that if public incentives are involved, local workers should see direct benefits.
AGAINST
  • Data center developers Developers may argue that tying tax incentives to negotiated community agreements adds uncertainty, delays, and compliance costs. They may also say local zoning already provides enough oversight without additional federal conditions.
  • Technology and cloud infrastructure users Companies that rely on rapid data center buildout may worry that extra conditions slow the expansion of computing capacity. They would argue that delays can raise costs and reduce the speed of digital infrastructure deployment.
  • State economic development officials Officials focused on attracting investment may see the bill as reducing flexibility in competing for large projects. They may prefer standardized incentives rather than project-by-project community negotiations.
  • “protect the authority of local governments to make zoning decisions”

    This means local officials would keep primary control over whether and where data centers can be built, rather than having federal tax policy override local land-use choices.

  • “require community benefit agreements”

    Developers would need to negotiate formal commitments with the surrounding community, which could include jobs, mitigation measures, or infrastructure support.

  • “as a condition for Federal tax incentives”

    The tax benefit would not be automatic; a project would have to satisfy the agreement requirement first, giving communities leverage in the approval process.

June 11, 2026

Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

Take Action

Get more from BillBoard

Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.

Ask AI about this bill

Data sourced from api.congress.gov.

Free to use · No credit card

Understand every bill.
Make your voice count.

BillBoard turns dense U.S. legislation into plain-English summaries, helps you take a stance, and connects you to your representatives — in seconds.