New HampshireFailed proposal would allow data centers in commercial and industrial zones
The proposal would have allowed data centers in commercial and industrial zones under local rules, and let planning boards adopt regulations with local approval.
What it does
The proposal would allow data centers in commercial and industrial zones under local land use rules. A facility would be excluded from the definition only if it meets all three stated conditions.
A planning board could adopt rules for data centers if the local legislative body approves them.
Argument forData center operators could have a clearer path to locating in commercial and industrial zones, while still following local land use rules.
Argument againstMunicipalities might have less room to keep data centers out of commercial and industrial zones, even though local land use rules would still apply.
More detail
Data centers would be allowed in commercial and industrial zoning districts. The definition covers facilities mainly used to store, process, manage, and transmit digital data. The centers would remain subject to local land use rules. A facility would be excluded from the definition only if it uses no more than 25 percent of the on-site buildings' total floor space, serves the property owner's business, and does not lease data services to others. If enacted, the act would take effect 60 days after passage.
A planning board could adopt regulations it considers necessary, with approval from the local legislative body. This authority would apply to local regulations for data centers. The local legislative body would have to approve the regulations.
Where do you stand?
Choose your position
Tell your reps
Take a position to see your representatives and ways to contact them.
Where it stands
- Introduced
- Passed Senate
- Died on table
Looking ahead
No hearings or votes scheduled.
History
- 2026
- Aug 19Died on Table, Session ended 08/19/2026 HJ 16Died on table
- May 14Lay SB439 on Table (Rep. Ammon): MA DV 304-11 05/14/2026 HJ 13 P. 110Minor
- May 6Minority Committee Report: Inexpedient to Legislate
- May 6Majority Committee Report: Ought to Pass with Amendment # 2026-1807h 05/05/2026 (Vote 11-9; RC) HC 19 P. 26Minor
- Apr 29Executive Session: 05/05/2026 10:30 am GP 154
- Apr 1Public Hearing: 04/07/2026 10:00 am GP 154
- Feb 26Introduced (in recess of) 02/19/2026 and referred to Municipal and County Government HJ 5 P. 124Minor
- Jan 29Ought to Pass with Amendment #2026-0176s, RC 16Y-8N, MA; OT3rdg; 01/29/2026; SJ 2Passed Senate
- Vote recorded Ought to Pass w/Amendment. Result: pass.Upper
- Vote recorded Committee Amendment. Result: pass.Upper
- Jan 29Sen. Perkins Kwoka Floor Amendment # 2026-0352s, AF, VV; 01/29/2026; SJ 2
- Jan 29Committee Amendment # 2026-0176s, RC 16Y-8N, AA; 01/29/2026; SJ 2
- Jan 29SB 439 was Removed from the Consent Calendar; 01/29/2026; SJ 2
- Jan 21Committee Report: Ought to Pass with Amendment # 2026-0176s, 01/29/2026; Vote 5-0; CC; SC 3Minor
- 2025
- Dec 10Hearing: 01/13/2026, Room 122-123, SH, 09:45 am; SC 46
- Nov 21Introduced 01/07/2026 and Referred to Election Law and Municipal Affairs; SJ 1Introduced
TechnologyGovernment & Ethics