Seattle City Council Announces Data Center Moratorium, But Will The Issue Be Victim To "Seattle Process"?

Last week, City Council Members Debora Juarez, Eddie Lin, and Council President Joy Hollingsworth announced they will introduce legislation to pause the citing of new data centers in Seattle for 365 days to study how these facilities could impact infrastructure, the economy, the environment and public health outcomes. 

This marks a victory for advocates who flooded the Mayor and the City Council’s inboxes with more than 85,000 emails, demanding a moratorium on data centers after the Seattle Times revealed four companies (two have since backed out) had inquired with Seattle City Light about building five massive data centers in City limits. But the fight’s not over — the council still has to pass the bill, which will likely face corporate opposition. And even if they pass the year-long moratorium, there is no guarantee the subsequent studies will lead to the strong regulations or all-out bans that environmentalists demand. 

Ben Jones from 350 Seattle gave City Council kudos for responding to community outcry “much faster than council normally moves.” The news broke about five potential data centers coming to Seattle on April 10, the letter-writing campaign launched April 16, and then just about two weeks later council members officially announced legislation to meet the demand. 

Jones also noted that it’s a sign of the policy’s popularity that three council members are “competing for credit” for the idea. 

And from their words in the press release, the council members co-sponsoring this seem pretty fired up.

“Thousands of Seattleites have made their voices heard — we should not be subsidizing the massive and record profits of tech corporations pursuing large AI data centers in our city,” Lin said. “...We need to hit pause on data centers, engage with neighboring jurisdictions, and develop regulations that prohibit mega data centers unless they can be done in economically and environmentally sustainable ways that benefit all of us.”

“Water, land, and air are life-giving resources not to be moved around on a balance sheet,” said Juarez. “Extraction culture speaks about these resources in the language of accounting rather than finite, precious resources for all people, prioritizing short-term gain over the well-being of all. These proposed centers raise serious ethical questions if they proceed without safeguards or policies to protect our resources. As elected leaders, we have a responsibility to join with residents and thoroughly examine the long-term impact of these decisions.”

But advocates know they have a long way to go. 

“It’s also part one,” Jones said. “What matters is what happens after the moratorium and that we keep the pressure up.”

From 350 Seattle’s meeting with Lin’s office, it sounds like the City will convene stakeholders to carry out the study. The press release does not specifically reference a workgroup or taskforce and Lin’s office did not respond to request for clarification. 

Seattle advocates have seen this before, the City announces a workgroup, a taskforce, some kind of study appearing to respond to community concern. Lawmakers pat themselves on the back. Then, ideation, horse-trading, decision-making happen largely behind closed doors, which historically favors the corporations, or the otherwise wealthy and powerful. Then lawmakers can both diffuse blame and still look responsive to their constituents when they propose some corpo garbage or abandon the idea all together.

Many refer to this as the "Seattle Process." And its killed progressive agenda items before.

For example, the former Seattle City Council Member Teresa Mosqueda and former Mayor Bruce Harrell convened a taskforce in 2022 to identify and recommend new progressive revenue streams to fill a looming budget hole in 2025. Behind closed doors, then CEO of the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce Rachel Smith attempted to derail the process, shifting the conversation to austerity rather than taxation. Her tantrum in part delayed the process, shrunk the list of taxes the group presented, and she managed to scrub language from the report explicitly recommending any of them. The City Council then just threw up their hands and didn’t pass a single one. 

If there is a taskforce element to this study, Jones said advocates' next fight will be to make sure it is stocked with workers, environmental experts, the average people who will experience the negatives associated with data centers rather than the wealthy who want to turn a profit. 

For the most staunchily opposed to data centers, this process will likely not bring about satisfactory results. The press release does not read as though council members are looking to all-out ban new data centers.

"The goal is to potentially reduce or mitigate any deleterious effects and enhance beneficial impacts of data center development and operation in Seattle," the press release reads.

On the bright side, it seems Seattle is already looking to protect rate payers. According to the Seattle Times, City Light is rewriting its contract terms for “large load” customers such as these data centers and that policy will “likely require” these facilities to find their own power generation outside of Seattle’s supply and make them pay for infrastructure upgrades to keep residents’ rates from increasing.