Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Centers Moratorium topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Quorum Court votes down amendment to moratorium that sought to clarify retroactivity
Summary
An amendment to ordinance 26I52 proposed by Justice Person to clarify that projects with prior contracts still could be subject to future regulation failed on roll call (8 nays, 6 ayes); members debated whether the amendment strengthened the moratorium or left open retroactive regulation.
Justice Person proposed an amendment to ordinance 26I52 clarifying non‑retroactivity: projects with executed electric service contracts or final county approvals would not be covered by the moratorium, but the amendment also said such entities could be subject to future regulation. The clerk read the amendment language aloud and Justice Person moved for adoption; the county attorney advised the court the clause was legally permissible but that any future regulation would require separate consideration.
Several justices questioned whether the proposed language actually tightened the moratorium or merely put entities on notice of potential future regulation. The amendment was put to a roll call and failed (8 nays, 6 ayes). The county judge announced the amendment's failure and the assembly moved back to the main ordinance. The discussion highlighted the central legal tension of the meeting: balancing the desire for immediate restrictions with the risk of litigation and the limits of county authority over projects already at advanced stages.
