Growth and friction coexist
Delivery constraints do not mean data-center investment has stopped. CBRE's H1 2026 report records primary-market supply growth of 33.7% year over year and 7,481.1 MW under construction. The same report identifies power delivery and local approval constraints. These are market observations, not a forecast of Aguasto demand or available capacity.
LBNL's June report examines emerging approaches to connecting large loads. The engineering question is not simply how quickly a building can be assembled, but what establishes authorized and reliable electrical service for its intended load.
- Santa Fe County, New MexicoCounty announcement published; exact vote date not independently normalizedSource and scope ↗
- New York StateExecutive order signedSource and scope ↗
- Nashville / Davidson County, TennesseeFederal memorandum opinion dateSource and scope ↗
- Unincorporated Manatee County, FloridaFinal hearing/adoption and publication date stated in county releaseSource and scope ↗
Different jurisdictions, different measures
The records below identify what the cited document establishes. A government announcement, an enacted order and a procedural court opinion have different evidentiary boundaries. Missing ordinance details and later docket developments remain unverified.
| Jurisdiction & date | Status & threshold | Permit scope | Documented outcome & limits |
|---|---|---|---|
| New York State Executive order signed | Enacted executive order50 MW or more under the order's definition; stated exclusions apply | DEC discretionary applications not determined complete before the order; local-government permits are expressly outside this provision.Until the specified environmental report and findings; the announcement describes a pause of up to one year. | No individual delayed project established by the order alone.The definition is based on the facility and load, not whether its enclosure is prefabricated.Subsequent enforcement or amendment not established in this review.New York Executive Order 62 ↗ · Governor announcement |
| Santa Fe County, New Mexico County announcement published; exact vote date not independently normalized | Adoption reported by countyOne MW, according to the county announcement | 18-month pause on data-center development; this announcement does not reproduce every ordinance exception or permit category.18 months reported; exact effective/expiry dates require the enacted ordinance. | The county reported no currently proposed data centers. No stopped project is inferred.A one-MW threshold demonstrates why small or modular projects need jurisdiction-specific review.Later amendment, repeal or enforcement not established in this review.Santa Fe County adoption announcement ↗ |
| Unincorporated Manatee County, Florida Final hearing/adoption and publication date stated in county release | Ordinance 26-42 adoptedDo not substitute the state's 50-MW large-scale definition for the full county ordinance's scope | New data-center-related building, site-plan, development-order/agreement, special-use, rezoning and comprehensive-plan applications in unincorporated areas.12 months or earlier repeal; extension may be considered as permitted by law. | No particular delayed project established; the county's impact estimate expected no existing businesses affected.The release covers data-center-related applications, so a modular format is not itself an exception.No later reversal established as of review; full ordinance definitions should govern a project assessment.Manatee County Ordinance 26-42 announcement ↗ |
| Nashville / Davidson County, Tennessee Federal memorandum opinion date | Individual court proceeding; not a new statewide prohibitionNo universal load threshold normalized from this opinion | DCB Nashville, LLC v. Metropolitan Government, case 3:2026cv01143, document 28. The opinion addresses pleadings and jurisdiction; dismissal and leave to amend do not establish final project merits.Procedural litigation status; no automatic moratorium expiry inferred. | One proposed DCB project and alleged permit dispute. Allegations are distinguished from factual findings.This opinion does not establish a general modular exemption. Its discussion distinguishes trade permits from zoning/building/grading permits.Subsequent filings, appeal or final project outcome not established in this review.Federal court memorandum opinion, reproduced by Justia ↗ |
Modularity changes engineering, not jurisdiction
Off-site preparation can reorganize part of construction and integration. It does not authorize a load, change a land-use classification or replace an environmental approval. Santa Fe County's reported one-MW threshold illustrates why a small facility cannot be assumed to fall outside local scrutiny.
A site evaluation needs the actual ordinance, applicable permit categories and utility conditions. The physical form of a module is one input to that analysis. Existing equipment, a successful factory test or a small initial phase does not establish permission to operate.
Project disputes need precise reporting
A court opinion can address pleading defects or jurisdiction without deciding whether a proposed project should ultimately proceed. The DCB Nashville opinion is recorded as an individual proceeding. We do not convert allegations into established delays, or one project's dispute into a statement about an entire hyperscaler's construction program.
Likewise, planned, proposed and enacted restrictions must remain separate. A report that a moratorium lasts a given period does not establish its precise expiry when effective dates, repeal provisions or extensions have not been independently reviewed.
Implications for Aguasto's development thesis
A modular strategy can support decisions at each phase: whether demand is sufficient, interfaces are validated and the next capital commitment is justified. That flexibility may be valuable even when utility and approval timelines remain unchanged. It also introduces repeated infrastructure and operating responsibilities.
Aguasto's proposed distributed facilities would need site-specific feasibility, consistent engineering and a credible operating plan. This research establishes public examples of development friction; it does not establish an approved Aguasto site, a faster delivery timetable or a regulatory exemption.