The data-center backlash hits PJM: four New Jersey towns move to ban or freeze data centers, with York County (SC) and Wilson County (TN) close behind

What changed

A coordinated wave of local data-center restrictions surfaced in SitePath's news layer this cycle. The trigger headline (GovTech, 2026-06-22, in SitePath's news index) was "Data Center Bans Emerge in 4 More New Jersey Communities." The meeting-researcher pass identified and sourced the four municipalities to primary records — and the picture is sharper than the headline:

• Warren Township (Somerset Co.) — permanent ban, adopted. Ordinance 26-19 designates data centers a prohibited use in all zoning districts, given final adoption 5–0 on 2026-06-18. Confirmed against the township's own adopted-ordinance PDF (confidence 0.90).
• Red Bank (Monmouth Co.) — binding ban, adopted 2026-06-11, unanimous: a zoning ordinance amendment to Chapter 490 prohibiting data centers as a permitted use in all zones, plus a separate "AI Accountability" resolution urging a statewide pause. Red Bank was the first NJ town to call for a statewide moratorium (confidence 0.82; ordinance number still to confirm).
• Asbury Park (Monmouth Co.) — Resolution 2026-264, adopted unanimously 2026-06-10. Note: this is a policy resolution — a local hold on data-center applications/zoning changes pending a code amendment, plus a statewide-moratorium call to Governor Sherrill — not yet a binding zoning ban (confidence 0.88–0.92).
• Sayreville (Middlesex Co.) — 18-month moratorium (Ordinance 15-26) introduced on 2026-06-15; a motion to substitute a permanent ban failed 3–3 on the mayor's tiebreaker. Not yet law — public hearing/final adoption set for 2026-07-20 (confidence 0.88). (The two source passes disagree on the introduction vote — 5–0 vs 5–1; confirm against the agenda.)

All four sit in PJM; Warren Township is confirmed in PSE&G electric territory, the others in JCP&L (FirstEnergy) — still PJM load. The GovTech "bans" framing is loose: only Warren and Red Bank are enacted bans; Asbury Park is a resolution and Sayreville is a moratorium not yet adopted.

Two more counties outside NJ are on the same track:

• York County, SC (FIPS 45091) — a nine-month moratorium on data centers in unincorporated York County passed first reading 2026-06-15/16 (sources differ by a day; Councilmember Roddey abstained pending legal advice on the QTS facility under construction off Hans Mill Hwy, whose vested-rights status is uncertain). Second reading June 29; final reading July 13. The $1.5B project advanced at the same meeting is not a data center — it is "Project Palmetto Rock," an unnamed global biopharma proposing a ~$1.49B HQ + manufacturing plant (1,252 jobs) at Palmetto Research Park in Rock Hill, with a $65M state grant — exempt from the moratorium (confidence 0.85–0.92).
• Wilson County, TN (FIPS 47189) — the Planning & Zoning Committee advanced a six-month moratorium 2026-06-22 (scoped to C4 commercial zones), creating a six-member study committee to write defensible rules; the county attorney flagged that it may not survive a court challenge. Full County Commission vote is 2026-07-20 — not yet in effect (confidence 0.78).

Why it matters

New Jersey is a PJM state. A four-town wave there — two outright bans already on the books, one local freeze, one 18-month moratorium pending — is the clearest sign yet that the Virginia-style data-center siting backlash is now a region-wide PJM phenomenon, not a Virginia exception. The pattern is also explicitly statewide-minded: Asbury Park and Red Bank didn't just protect their own borders, they passed resolutions pressing Trenton (and Governor Sherrill) for a statewide moratorium. SitePath's own SitePath's data-center dataset already carries a state-rollup note that a NJ data-center bill "passed both chambers (Assembly 55-18), awaits Governor Sherrill signature" — consistent with, but not yet confirmation of, a statewide measure.

The opposition is load-specific, not anti-growth. York County, SC froze data centers in the same session it advanced a $1.5B biopharmaceutical project — a county sorting large loads by water draw, power demand, and tax terms rather than rejecting industry. That is the same calculus driving Virginia's data-center politics, and it travels.

For the dataset, this is a freshness gap to close. The curated SitePath's data-center dataset has not caught up: the relevant NJ counties still read status: "No Specific Activity", York County (SC) still reads "No confirmed county-specific data center ordinance" (lastActionDate 2025-11-10), and Wilson County (TN) is absent from the counties array. The tracked counters (moratoriumActive 22, banEnacted 1, townshipMoratorium 10) were unchanged day-over-day. The news and meeting layers are ahead of the structured layer — these confirmed actions should be promoted into the county records and counters (Warren Township alone is a clean new banEnacted).

Recommended next steps (human)

1. Promote the confirmed actions into SitePath's data-center dataset county records and increment counters — Warren Township → banEnacted, Red Bank → ban, Asbury Park/Sayreville → moratorium/township-moratorium, York SC + Wilson TN → proposed/active per stage.
2. Resolve NJ jurisdiction tagging to the municipal level (records currently sit at county FIPS).
3. Confirm the NJ statewide bill status before any "state permitting rule change" claim is made publicly.
4. Calendar the 2026-07-20 Sayreville and Wilson County votes and the York County July 13 final hearing for follow-up.