On the November 3rd Ballot, there will be two Questions that Nevadans will vote on. In 2024, Question 6: The Fundamental Right to Abolition and Question 7: Voter Identification passed, which means these measures will be voted on again and placed n the 2026 ballot. In this election if they pass, they will be enacted into the Nevada Constitution. We will discuss both ballot measures, and share the LEAN Voter Guide, and talk about the issues that Nevadans are interested. Join us for this special night!
In the past couple of weeks, Data Centers have become a fast moving issue. This past week, LEAN has been diving into the issue after Governor Lombardo’s Executive Order.
Here are a couple of the articles that LEAN has been sharing.
Data centers have become one of the most urgent public-policy issues heading toward Nevada’s 2027 Legislative Session. The facilities that power cloud computing and artificial intelligence can bring investment and construction work, but their rapid growth also raises serious questions about electricity costs, water, tax fairness, public lands, and local control.
Across Nevada, communities are asking a simple question: Who benefits, and who pays?
In Reno, the City Council has extended its pause on new data-center permits through August 2027 while it considers stronger local rules. In Boulder City, voters will decide this November whether data centers should become an allowed use on an additional 14,000 acres of city-owned land in the Eldorado Valley. Meanwhile, a separate proposal on nearby federal land has been paused during an appeal after concerns about its environmental review.
These local decisions matter statewide. Data centers require enormous amounts of electricity, and expanding the grid to serve them should not shift new costs onto families, small businesses, or people already struggling with high utility bills. Water use is also a major concern in a state shaped by drought, limited groundwater, and the ongoing uncertainty of the Colorado River.
Nevada’s tax incentives deserve close attention, too. The state has provided substantial abatements to attract data centers, even as communities need revenue for schools, housing, health care, infrastructure, and climate resilience. Nevadans deserve transparent information about every subsidy: what a company receives, what it promises in return, how many permanent jobs it creates, and whether those promises are met.
LEAN believes economic development must serve the common good. Before new data centers move forward, Nevada should ensure:
Communities have meaningful notice, transparency, and a real voice in local land-use decisions.
Data centers pay their fair share of new generation, transmission, and infrastructure costs.
Water use, air pollution, and impacts on desert ecosystems and public lands are independently assessed and publicly reported.
Tax abatements include clear public benefits, enforceable job and wage standards, and regular disclosure.
Tribal nations and communities most affected by development are consulted early and treated as partners.
Nevada has statewide standards so protections do not depend solely on a community’s ZIP code.
Technology can be part of Nevada’s future. But that future must protect our water, keep energy affordable, respect public lands and Tribal sovereignty, and ensure that prosperity is shared—not subsidized at the public’s expense.
In just a few months, data centers have gone from a relatively wonky land-use and economic-development issue to one of the most consequential policy debates heading into Nevada’s November election and the 2027 Legislative Session.
In a previous post, we explored a timeline leading up to June 2026, and since then the times have vastly changed and evolved.
And this conversation isn’t really just about data centers.
It’s also about the extraordinarily fast development of artificial intelligence and the physical infrastructure required to power it: electricity generation, transmission lines, water, land and enormous industrial facilities. It is about the collective amount of water use, environmental, and the impacts on the very communities these data centers occupy.
Nationally, the issue has also reached Congress. On September 16, the U.S. House overwhelmingly passed legislation addressing whether data centers should bear the infrastructure costs associated with their enormous electricity demands rather than shifting those costs to other utility customers.
Here in Nevada, the politics have changed quickly too.
Attorney General Aaron Ford, who co-sponsored Nevada’s original 2015 data center tax-abatement legislation while serving in the Legislature, now says the industry has changed significantly since that law was enacted. As a candidate for governor, Ford has proposed pausing new abatements while reviewing their performance and requiring data centers to bear costs associated with their electricity demands.
Governor Joe Lombardo has continued to describe data centers as an important economic opportunity for Nevada, but on September 18 he signed an executive order imposing new conditions on companies seeking state abatements—including requirements involving school taxes, utility costs, water and grid reliability.
And perhaps one of the most interesting developments is how difficult this issue has become to fit neatly into our normal political boxes.
Concerns about electricity bills, water, tax incentives and local control have generated opposition to data center development from people and organizations across the political spectrum. Nationally, Republicans and Democrats have both introduced proposals addressing the industry’s costs and impacts.
So how did we get here?
Over the past several months, data centers have moved from a local land-use question to a major statewide policy conversation.
During Nevada’s legislative interim, lawmakers heard testimony about their potential impacts on electricity demand, water, utility rates, tax revenue, public lands and local communities.
Since then, communities have begun taking action.
RENO
Reno adopted a moratorium on new data center applications while the city develops regulations addressing water, electricity, noise, land use and community impacts.
HUMBOLDT COUNTY
County commissioners adopted a temporary moratorium while officials develop standards addressing electricity, water, noise and appropriate locations for future facilities.
WHITE PINE COUNTY
Commissioners adopted a temporary moratorium on data center land-use applications while the county studies potential impacts.
NYE COUNTY
Nye County went further, moving from a temporary pause to restrictions prohibiting data center development.
TRIBAL NATIONS
Tribal governments, including the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe and Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, have taken action restricting data center development on Tribal lands.
HENDERSON
Henderson considered a moratorium but chose instead to pursue changes to its development code and review future projects through development agreements.
AUGUST 26 — THE CONVERSATION REACHES THE LEGISLATURE
The Legislature’s Joint Interim Standing Committee on Revenue voted 6–2 o request legislation that would repeal Nevada’s existing data center tax abatements and establish a statewide moratorium on constructing or expanding data centers.
That proposal now becomes part of the conversation heading into the 2027 Nevada Legislature.
SEPTEMBER 18 — LOMBARDO ESTABLISHES NEW CONDITIONS
Governor Lombardo signed Executive Order 2026-005, establishing what his administration calls the Nevada Standard for Responsible Data Center Development.
For companies seeking state data center abatements, the order requires developers to:
Pay the Local School Support Tax in full
Bear project-related costs rather than shifting them onto other utility customers
Meet applicable local water standards
Address electrical-grid reliability and emergency conditions
Enter into a Nevada Community Support Commitment before an abatement application moves forward.
The order also directs development of a Responsible Speed to Power Plan examining the infrastructure necessary to serve Nevada’s growing large electric loads through 2036.
But that isn’t the end of this conversation.
The governor’s framework continues to allow qualifying data center development under additional conditions.
Meanwhile, lawmakers have requested legislation contemplating a statewide moratorium and repeal of existing data center abatements.
And proposals are emerging around utility regulation, electricity infrastructure and who ultimately pays for the power necessary to operate these facilities.
That leaves Nevada with some major questions heading into 2027:
How should Nevada protect limited water resources?
Who should pay for new generation and transmission infrastructure?
What public benefit should Nevada require when granting tax incentives?
How should data center policy interact with funding for schools and other public services?
How should environmental and climate impacts be considered?
What protections should exist for neighboring communities?
How should Tribal governments participate when projects affect water, land and cultural resources?
And which decisions belong with cities and counties—and which require statewide standards?
There is another question underneath all of them:
As artificial intelligence drives demand for increasingly large amounts of physical infrastructure, how does Nevada capture potential economic benefits without shifting the costs onto communities, ratepayers and future generations?
Those questions are now being debated at the local, state and federal levels, which means decisions made by elected officials at each level will help determine Nevada’s approach.
This issue is evolving quickly.
LEAN will continue following the proposed legislation, local moratoriums, utility proceedings, tax policy and other developments as Nevada moves toward the 2027 Legislative Session.
Because decisions about our water, electricity, schools, public revenue, land and communities are decisions about our neighbors—and those decisions deserve public attention.
Nevada has joined 21 other states and Washington, D.C., in challenging a new federal immigration policy that could make it harder for some people to receive a green card or enter the United States.
Under the policy, immigration officers may consider whether an applicant has used certain public benefits, including Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), food assistance, or housing assistance, when making some immigration decisions.
The federal government says the change promotes self-sufficiency. Nevada and the other states argue that it is vague, unlawful, and likely to cause harm.
Why does this matter?
Families may avoid health care, food assistance, school meals, or housing support because they fear it could affect an immigration case, even when a child or other family member is legally eligible for that help.
This can affect entire households, including U.S.-citizen children. When families skip preventive care or go without enough food, the consequences can include greater illness, hunger, housing instability, and increased costs for communities and public systems.
The lawsuit argues that widespread disenrollment could also reduce federal support for Medicaid, CHIP, and SNAP, leaving states to address the resulting gaps.
For LEAN, this is about human dignity and community well-being.
Immigration policy is also health policy, hunger policy, housing policy, and children’s policy. Every family should be able to seek the care and support for which they are eligible without fear.
Families with questions about their individual circumstances should seek advice from a qualified immigration attorney or trusted nonprofit legal-services provider. Do not rely on social media or general information alone for legal advice.
