Under current Texas law, no approval from any local governmental authority is required before a hyperscale data center breaks ground in an unincorporated Texas county. The commissioners court cannot stop it. The county cannot zone it. The AG’s office confirmed in 2023 that counties have no authority to impose a moratorium on large industrial construction. Bill 1836-1 fills that gap.

How it works:

• Developer files an application with the county for a county-wide popular vote before any permit may be issued
• Developer funds an independent impact assessment covering water, grid, noise, light, traffic, and property value impacts — conducted before the election is called
• A yes/no ballot is held at the next uniform election date — simple majority wins
• Developer funds the full cost of the election
• If voters approve, state permits may proceed
• If voters reject, the developer may not reapply for two years
• No state permit may be issued until the vote is completed and approved

A popular vote by the county electorate is the most legally defensible form of local approval. A developer has fewer grounds to challenge an election result than a commissioners court decision. And it is the one mechanism that corporate money cannot simply outspend.

Under Chapter 312 of the Texas Tax Code, commissioners courts can grant hyperscale data centers property tax abatements of up to 10 years with minimal public transparency. Commissioners courts currently have limited authority to deny data center development outright — which is why 1836-1 is the cornerstone. But transparency matters regardless. Bill 1836-2 ensures the community knows before the vote, not after.

Notification requirements — all costs borne by the developer:

• County-wide public notice of any Chapter 312 abatement application — full fiscal impact disclosed
• Certified mail to all property owners within 5 miles — at least 45 days before any vote
• Notice to adjacent counties if the facility is within 5 miles of a county line
• Notice to relevant groundwater conservation districts, water districts, and electric utilities
• School district notification — the district whose tax base is being reduced has a formal right to be heard
• Physical signage on the property, visible from the nearest public road, for the full 45-day notice period
• Full application documents published on the county website at least 45 days prior
• One public hearing in the county seat, no earlier than 30 days after notice is sent, at an evening or weekend time accessible to working residents

Transparency requirements:

• Full public disclosure of all abatement terms — dollar value, duration, and any developer commitments — before approval
• No closed-session negotiation — abatement negotiations with hyperscale data center developers do not qualify for executive session
• Annual public reporting of actual jobs created, tax revenue foregone, water consumed, and grid load — published on the county website for every year of the abatement term

If a developer can afford a 10-year tax break worth tens of millions of dollars, they can afford to notify every taxpayer who will subsidize it. If they are proud of the deal they negotiated, they can say so in public.

Data centers are loud and blazingly bright — industrial cooling equipment and diesel generators operate 24/7, while banks of security lighting illuminate neighboring properties through the night. Texas counties have almost no enforceable authority to enact noise ordinances in unincorporated areas and there are no statewide standards. Bill 1836-3 establishes them.

Bill 1836-3 establishes:

• Statewide maximum decibel limits measured at the neighboring property line — not at the facility perimeter
• Stricter nighttime limits to protect residential quality of life
• Prohibition on direct light trespass onto neighboring parcels
• A private right of action for affected landowners to seek actual damages directly from the operator — including diminution in property value
• TCEQ as a secondary enforcement backstop

Modeled after Virginia HB 153 (2026) — the state with the most data center experience in the nation — which now requires noise impact assessments and gives localities stronger tools to protect residents. [Virginia HB 153, 2026]

Texas sits atop several major aquifers — the Ogallala, the Trinity, the Carrizo-Wilcox — that supply water to farms, ranches, and rural communities across the state. A single hyperscale data center can consume hundreds of thousands to millions of gallons of water per day for cooling. That water has to come from somewhere.

Bill 1836-4 requires major data centers to:

• File annual water consumption reports with the Texas Water Development Board
• Submit drought contingency plans before construction begins
• Obtain certification from the relevant Groundwater Conservation District confirming the local aquifer can sustain the projected draw
• Comply with GCD-imposed withdrawal limits during drought conditions

When a rancher in West Texas pumps from the Ogallala, they are subject to GCD oversight. A hyperscale data center drawing millions of gallons per day should be subject to the same rules.

ERCOT’s large load interconnection queue has grown dramatically, with hyperscale data centers accounting for a significant and growing share of new load requests. Every megawatt a data center draws is a megawatt that must be generated, transmitted, and backstopped — and the infrastructure costs for that capacity are socialized across all Texas ratepayers.

Bill 1836-5 requires hyperscale data centers to:

• Enter interruptible load agreements with ERCOT, allowing the grid operator to curtail data center load during peak demand events that threaten grid stability — Texas homes and businesses have priority
• Pay grid impact fees proportionate to their maximum load draw, funding transmission and generation infrastructure required to serve them
• Demonstrate before any state permit is issued that the facility’s power supply can be sourced from generation capacity located within 50 miles of the facility site. Where no sufficient local generation capacity exists within 50 miles, the developer must fund 100% of any new transmission infrastructure required — with no portion of that cost passed to Texas ratepayers through ERCOT transmission charges or utility rate adjustments
• Report actual load consumption annually to the Public Utility Commission

When a Texas family adds an electric vehicle, their utility may charge them a higher rate or require a load study. A data center drawing as much power as a small city should meet at least the same standard.

Studies on industrial facility impacts consistently show that large facilities — particularly those with noise, light, traffic, and visual impact — suppress property values for neighboring landowners. A landowner who bought rural property for its quiet, its views, and its agricultural productivity should not lose that value because a billion-dollar corporation chose their county.

Bill 1836-6 requires developers to:

• Post a surety bond — sized to the projected property value impact — held in escrow for ten years from the date the facility becomes operational
• Establish an administrative claims process through which neighboring property owners within five miles may document and claim compensation for documented property value decline attributable to the facility
• Replenish the bond if claims reduce it below a required minimum

The party that creates a risk should bear that risk. Bill 1836-6 puts the financial exposure where it belongs — with the developer, not the neighbors.

HB 2127 — the Texas Regulatory Consistency Act — was enacted in 2023 to limit local government overreach, but its broad preemption language has been used to strip counties of authority over data center development. Rollback-1 carves hyperscale data center facilities out of that preemption, restoring whatever regulatory authority counties held before September 1, 2023 — without repealing or weakening HB 2127 for any other purpose.

Before 2019, Texas municipalities could annex industrial development sites within their extraterritorial jurisdiction that would strain city roads, water systems, and emergency services. That authority was stripped by annexation reform legislation. Rollback-2 restores it specifically for hyperscale data center development sites — giving cities a meaningful voice over what gets built at their doorstep, regardless of whether the developer consents.

HB 2127’s broad language left counties uncertain about whether they can act to protect residents from industrial development — so they haven’t. Rollback-3 clarifies that county health and safety authority was never preempted, removes that legal cloud, and shields counties from HB 2127-based lawsuits when acting in good faith to protect their residents.