N.Y. Data Center Freeze Tests State’s Leverage With Developers
This article originally appeared in Galaxy Research's weekly newsletter. Subscribe to get the most timely insights delivered to your inbox every Friday morning.
New York, the state building one of the country’s most advanced academic AI supercomputers and long happy to hand server farms tax breaks, this week became the first U.S. state to freeze construction of data centers.
The pause matters less than the terms attached to it. What's new is the deal you get for building in the Empire State after the moratorium expires: no tax breaks, and a bill for the grid strain and the community that data centers move into. It's the first serious attempt to make data center developers pay their own way, and the rest of the country is watching to see whether it works.
On July 14, Gov. Kathy Hochul signed EO No. 62, which imposed a statewide moratorium on new data centers of 50 megawatts (MW) and up, freezing permits while the state studies what these things do to the grid, the water, and the neighbors. Her pitch is that the data center buildout and AI transition amount to a generational economic upheaval, and she won't let AI's power bill get expensed to New Yorkers who already pay some of the highest rates in the nation.
New York is not alone in taking action around data center development; states across the nation are rethinking the tax breaks and abatements they hand out to attract investment. For a decade, states competed to land data centers with incentives; by 2026 that had flipped to gatekeeping. Roughly 14 states have floated moratoriums. Maine's legislature passed one but its governor vetoed it. Ohio activists pushed a 25 MW ban toward the ballot but fell short of the signatures and are now aiming for 2027. In Texas (home to Galaxy Digital’s Helios campus) developers are also facing headwinds and some have resorted to suing jurisdictions over data center moratoriums. But New York is the first to make a statewide-freeze stick.
The legislature in Albany had already passed a moratorium of its own, the Responsible Data Center Development Act, which cleared both chambers on June 4. Hochul never signed it. She left the bill on the shelf and signed her own executive order about six weeks later. The two instruments are not the same. If the bill were to become law, it would have been durable and bind future governors, while an executive order is fast and revocable, and this one leans on environmental-review law to justify the freeze.
There is little difference in substance between the bill and the EO. The legislature’s moratorium would have kicked in at 20 MW, the EO’s only at 50. That 30-megawatt gap sounds like it should matter, but it barely does. Per cleanview.co's data, only one planned project sits in the 20-to-50 MW band: the 30 MW ORNY1 expansion from 1547 Critical Systems Realty in Orangeburg, less than 1% of the planned data center capacity. The threshold everyone treated as the real dividing line separates the two approaches by a single building. That is why state Sen. Kristen Gonzalez, the bill's sponsor, could call the order "similar to our bill," and be right. On the substance of what gets frozen, the two are effectively the same.
The pause stops a material amount of data center buildout. Data centers are queued for more than 12 gigawatts, over a third of everything New York consumes, in a state that already pays the fourth-highest power prices in the country and has watched rates climb nearly 68% since 2019.
Under Hochul’s EO, once construction is allowed to resume, there will be no abatements (she is pushing to repeal the sales-tax exemption), plus a required Community Investment Framework (final version due from the state in September) that sets a negotiating floor near $1 million per megawatt of demand and adds prevailing-wage and local-hiring commitments on top of good-neighbor terms for noise and light. A 250 MW hyperscaler would open talks owing a quarter-billion, money that can go toward infrastructure, housing, childcare, broadband, and schools. The logic tracks the economics: if you can't get lasting jobs out of the development, extract lasting capital investments for the community.
The push didn't start in Albany. It started locally, with residents and environmental-justice groups who spent years fighting individual projects, and it turned out to cross party lines: a June Siena poll found New Yorkers backing a moratorium 46% vs. 21% opposed, with majorities among both Democrats and Republicans. Their argument leaned heavily on what had already happened elsewhere. In Virginia's data-center alley, wholesale power prices ran up as much as 267%, and one county's schools were told to dim the lights.
Massachusetts did a version of this with casinos a decade ago: it capped the licenses and made each operator sign a binding host-community agreement with mitigation payments. Gambling or GPUs, the social mechanism is old and familiar: the public names an externality, and its representatives address it through targeted legislation. Not the state breaking the market; representative government doing what it says on the tin.
OUR TAKE
This isn’t the nail in the coffin for data centers in New York. There is a way out, and it's the part worth watching to see if any developers get clever with their applications. Hochul's EO carves out an exemption for facilities primarily used for research, such as quantum or biomedical work, along with education, medical care, and the state's own Empire AI.
So, does a research exemption quietly make New York a good place to build the right kind of compute? It's not hard to imagine a frontier lab structuring a "research" facility that does no inference but focuses on AI alignment research. That's the recurring problem with regulations and definitions: the categories become the thing everyone optimizes toward, and "primarily used for research" is squishy enough to end up meaning whatever regulators decide it means.
New York is betting that hyperscalers need the state more than it needs them, and perhaps that other states will follow its suit. The next year will settle it. If compute is desperate enough for power, developers will pay the price, and other statehouses will copy the invoice. If it isn't, the money will reroute to friendlier jurisdictions, and states like New York will find out they wrote rules for an industry that had already left.
Legal Disclosure:
This document, and the information contained herein, has been provided to you by Galaxy Digital Inc. and its affiliates (“Galaxy Digital”) solely for informational purposes. This document may not be reproduced or redistributed in whole or in part, in any format, without the express written approval of Galaxy Digital. Neither the information, nor any opinion contained in this document, constitutes an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, any advisory services, securities, futures, options or other financial instruments or to participate in any advisory services or trading strategy. Nothing contained in this document constitutes investment, legal or tax advice or is an endorsement of any of the stablecoins mentioned herein. You should make your own investigations and evaluations of the information herein. Any decisions based on information contained in this document are the sole responsibility of the reader. Readers should consult with their own advisors and rely on their independent judgement when making financial or investment decisions.
Participants, along with Galaxy Digital, may hold financial interests in certain assets referenced in this content. Galaxy Digital regularly engages in buying and selling financial instruments, including through hedging transactions, for its own proprietary accounts and on behalf of its counterparties. Galaxy Digital also provides services to vehicles that invest in various asset classes. If the value of such assets increases, those vehicles may benefit, and Galaxy Digital’s service fees may increase accordingly. The information and analysis in this communication are based on technical, fundamental, and market considerations and do not represent a formal valuation. For more information, please refer to Galaxy’s public filings and statements. Certain asset classes discussed, including digital assets, may be volatile and involve risk, and actual market outcomes may differ materially from perspectives expressed here.
For additional risks related to digital assets, please refer to the risk factors contained in filings Galaxy Digital Inc. makes with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) from time to time, including in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2025, filed with the SEC on November 10, 2025, available at www.sec.gov.
Certain statements in this document reflect Galaxy Digital’s views, estimates, opinions or predictions (which may be based on proprietary models and assumptions, including, in particular, Galaxy Digital’s views on the current and future market for certain digital assets), and there is no guarantee that these views, estimates, opinions or predictions are currently accurate or that they will be ultimately realized. To the extent these assumptions or models are not correct or circumstances change, the actual performance may vary substantially from, and be less than, the estimates included herein. None of Galaxy Digital nor any of its affiliates, shareholders, partners, members, directors, officers, management, employees or representatives makes any representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of any of the information or any other information (whether communicated in written or oral form) transmitted or made available to you. Each of the aforementioned parties expressly disclaims any and all liability relating to or resulting from the use of this information. Certain information contained herein (including financial information) has been obtained from published and non-published sources. Such information has not been independently verified by Galaxy Digital and, Galaxy Digital, does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of such information. Affiliates of Galaxy Digital may have owned, hedged and sold or may own, hedge and sell investments in some of the digital assets, protocols, equities, or other financial instruments discussed in this document. Affiliates of Galaxy Digital may also lend to some of the protocols discussed in this document, the underlying collateral of which could be the native token subject to liquidation in the event of a margin call or closeout. The economic result of closing out the protocol loan could directly conflict with other Galaxy affiliates that hold investments in, and support, such token. Except where otherwise indicated, the information in this document is based on matters as they exist as of the date of preparation and not as of any future date, and will not be updated or otherwise revised to reflect information that subsequently becomes available, or circumstances existing or changes occurring after the date hereof. This document provides links to other Websites that we think might be of interest to you. Please note that when you click on one of these links, you may be moving to a provider’s website that is not associated with Galaxy Digital. These linked sites and their providers are not controlled by us, and we are not responsible for the contents or the proper operation of any linked site. The inclusion of any link does not imply our endorsement or our adoption of the statements therein. We encourage you to read the terms of use and privacy statements of these linked sites as their policies may differ from ours. The foregoing does not constitute a “research report” as defined by FINRA Rule 2241 or a “debt research report” as defined by FINRA Rule 2242 and was not prepared by Galaxy Digital Partners LLC. Similarly, the foregoing does not constitute a “research report” as defined by CFTC Regulation 23.605(a)(9) and was not prepared by Galaxy Derivatives LLC. For all inquiries, please email [email protected].
©Copyright Galaxy Digital Inc. 2026. All rights reserved.