A growing number of U.S. states are moving toward sweeping restrictions on new data center construction, as the explosive growth of facilities needed to power artificial intelligence collides with electricity shortages, water stress, rising utility bills, and intensifying political scrutiny.

What began as a series of local zoning disputes has now escalated into a statewide legislative fight, with Georgia emerging as the epicenter. Lawmakers in Maryland and Oklahoma have also introduced statewide moratorium bills in recent days, reflecting how concerns about data centers have rapidly shifted from municipal planning offices to state capitols.

In Georgia, Democratic state legislator Ruwa Romman has introduced House Bill 1012, which would halt approvals for new data centers until March next year. The pause, she said, is intended to give state, county, and municipal governments time to develop clear regulatory frameworks for an industry that “permanently alter[s] the landscape of our state.” If enacted, it would be the first statewide moratorium on new data centers in the United States.

The proposal lands at a moment when Georgia’s data center growth has reached unprecedented levels. The Atlanta metropolitan area led the nation in data center construction in 2024, driven by a convergence of cheap land, generous tax incentives, historically low power costs, and proximity to major fiber routes. That expansion, however, has placed extraordinary pressure on the state’s power grid and water systems.

Just last month, Georgia’s Public Service Commission approved Georgia Power’s request to plan for an additional 10 gigawatts of electricity generation over the coming years, the largest such request in the commission’s history. The utility cited surging demand from data centers as the primary driver. Ten gigawatts is enough to power roughly 8.3 million homes, and much of the proposed capacity is expected to come from fossil fuel sources, raising alarms among environmental advocates.

The scale of that expansion has sharpened public concern about who benefits from the data center boom and who pays the costs. Electricity rates in Georgia have risen by roughly a third over the past several years, even as data centers continue to receive tax abatements and infrastructure support. For many residents, the link between AI infrastructure and higher utility bills has become increasingly difficult to ignore.

Charles Hua, founder of PowerLines, said public perception has shifted decisively. In Georgia, he noted, the state’s regulatory structure allows Georgia Power to earn profits on new capital investments, creating incentives to build more generation capacity rather than focus on grid efficiency measures that could lower costs.

“Datacenters and utility bills are inextricably linked in the public’s mind,” Hua said, adding that efficiency improvements often lack the same financial appeal for utilities despite their potential to reduce prices.

Water use has emerged as another flashpoint. Data centers rely heavily on water for cooling, and their rapid concentration in certain regions has intensified competition with residential, agricultural, and industrial users. Local officials and residents worry about long-term water availability, particularly during drought conditions, as well as the impact of large cooling facilities on surrounding ecosystems.

The backlash has already translated into local action. At least 10 municipalities in Georgia have passed their own moratoriums on data center construction, including Roswell, an Atlanta suburb that moved earlier this month. Nationwide, municipalities in at least 14 states have enacted similar pauses, according to Tech Policy Press, signaling a broad-based resistance that extends well beyond Georgia.

The issue has also attracted national political attention. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders proposed a nationwide moratorium last month, framing unchecked data center growth as a case study in corporate power overwhelming public interest. While the proposal faces steep hurdles, it underscores how AI infrastructure has become a mainstream political issue rather than a niche concern.

In Georgia, the debate is taking on a distinctly political edge. Romman is running for governor, and her bill explicitly ties the moratorium to upcoming elections for the Public Service Commission. Georgia is one of only 10 states where utility regulators are elected. Voters last November elected two progressive Democrats to the five-member commission, ending its all-Republican composition for the first time in nearly two decades. Another seat will be contested later this year, potentially shifting the balance of power.

Romman has argued that a pause on data center approvals would allow voters to weigh in on the direction of energy policy before the commission locks in long-term generation investments driven by tech companies. Her bill has drawn bipartisan support, with Republican lawmaker Jordan Ridley co-sponsoring the measure. Ridley said local governments need time to update zoning codes and gather public input, even as he acknowledged that data centers can bring tax revenue and high-paying jobs.

That tension runs through the entire debate. Supporters of data centers argue they anchor the digital economy, attract investment, and reinforce Georgia’s status as a technology hub. Opponents counter that the facilities employ relatively few people once built, consume disproportionate amounts of power and water, and leave local communities bearing the environmental and financial costs.

Republicans in the Georgia legislature have introduced bills aimed at protecting consumers from utility bill increases linked to data center expansion and eliminating tax breaks for the facilities. A separate Democratic proposal would require operators to publicly disclose annual energy and water consumption, a move supporters say would bring transparency to an industry that has expanded largely out of public view.

Peter Hubbard, one of the newly elected Democratic commissioners, recently captured the growing frustration in an opinion piece, writing that voters see data centers receiving incentives as their own power bills rise, communities compete for water supplies, and transmission lines depress property values. He argued that the commission’s past habit of approving every request from Georgia Power has fueled public distrust.

Environmental advocates say the stakes extend beyond Georgia. Paul Glaze of Georgia Conservation Voters said the debate could serve as a preview of future statewide elections, particularly in communities facing new data center projects.

“Anyone serious about statewide office should have a clear position on this,” he said.

The broader issue confronting states is structural. AI has dramatically increased demand for data centers at a pace that outstrips planning norms, regulatory frameworks, and infrastructure timelines. Power grids built for incremental growth are now being asked to absorb sudden, massive loads. Water systems face similar stress. As states weigh moratoriums, they are effectively grappling with how to reconcile the promise of AI-driven economic growth with finite public resources and rising voter unease.

What is unfolding in Georgia and other states suggests that the era of unchecked data center expansion is nearing its end. The political, environmental, and economic costs are now front and center, and lawmakers are signaling that the digital economy will no longer be allowed to grow without stricter oversight.

Michael Burry, the investor immortalized in The Big Short for anticipating the 2008 financial crisis, has once again trained his sights on GameStop, the video game retailer that became the defining symbol of the meme-stock era.

This time, however, Burry is at pains to distance his move from the speculative frenzy that propelled the stock into global headlines four years ago. His return to GameStop marks one of the more striking reversals in recent U.S. market narratives, not because the stock itself is unfamiliar, but because of the framework he is using to justify the investment.

Burry is now positioning GameStop as a rare balance-sheet-driven opportunity in a market he views as stretched and increasingly indifferent to tangible value.

The investor disclosed his renewed stake in a post on his Substack, Cassandra Unchained, prompting GameStop shares to rise as much as 6% on Monday. The immediate market reaction underscored how closely investors still track Burry’s moves, even years after his most famous call. It also highlighted GameStop’s enduring sensitivity to shifts in narrative, where changes in perception can still outweigh incremental developments in the company’s underlying business.

At the core of Burry’s thesis is valuation discipline. He argued that GameStop is trading close to one times tangible book value and net asset value, a metric he described as increasingly rare in U.S. equities. In an environment where many listed companies command significant premiums based on growth expectations, intangible assets, or future optionality, Burry is anchoring his case to what the company owns today rather than what it might become tomorrow.

“This is not a common occurrence in the U.S. stock market today,” Burry wrote, pointing to what he sees as asymmetric risk.

In his view, the company’s tangible assets and cash position provide a form of downside protection, limiting the scope for permanent capital loss while preserving upside if management executes effectively. This framing places GameStop closer to a traditional value investment than the speculative instrument it has been treated as since 2021.

The emphasis on management is equally central to Burry’s thinking. Ryan Cohen, GameStop’s chief executive and the founder of online pet retailer Chewy, features prominently in his analysis. Cohen has become a cult figure among retail investors, both for his activist posture and for his role in reshaping GameStop’s board and strategic direction. For Burry, Cohen represents a long-duration capital allocator rather than a short-term catalyst.

Burry’s language suggests an unusually extended time horizon. He spoke of backing Cohen’s deployment of capital “perhaps for the next 50 years,” an assertion that stands out in a market often dominated by quarterly earnings and near-term guidance. By emphasizing governance, balance-sheet stewardship, and patience, Burry is effectively arguing that GameStop should be judged less as a retailer in decline and more as a capital vehicle with optionality under disciplined leadership.

This long-term framing also serves to distance Burry from the stock’s meme-era legacy. GameStop’s 2021 short squeeze, driven by retail traders coordinating on online forums, transformed the company into a symbol of rebellion against Wall Street short sellers. Burry was involved in the stock before that episode, but has acknowledged that he exited his position weeks before the squeeze, missing the explosive upside that followed. That experience appears to inform his current insistence that he is not relying on a repeat of that phenomenon.

“I am not counting on a short squeeze to realize long-term value,” he wrote, stressing that the investment case does not depend on forced buying or market dislocations.

Instead, he cited governance, strategy, and capital allocation as the pillars of his conviction. He characterized the setup as unusual but justified, particularly in a market he believes offers few genuinely asymmetric opportunities.

GameStop’s corporate evolution under Cohen provides some context for this reassessment. The company has trimmed costs, reduced operational complexity, and accumulated a substantial cash balance relative to its market capitalization. While its core retail business continues to face pressure from digital distribution and shifting consumer habits, the balance sheet has become a focal point for investors searching for optionality rather than growth alone. For proponents of the stock, that optionality lies in what Cohen chooses to do with the company’s capital, whether through acquisitions, investments, or strategic pivots.

The market response to Burry’s disclosure was telling in another respect. Data from retail trading analytics platform ApeWisdom indicated a sharp increase in attention on GameStop following the announcement, while other former meme-stock favorites such as AMC Entertainment and Koss failed to attract comparable interest. This suggests that Burry’s move has been interpreted as a company-specific signal rather than a broader endorsement of the meme-stock complex.

That distinction matters as the earlier meme-stock surge was characterized by contagion, with flows spilling across loosely related names based on sentiment rather than fundamentals. The current episode appears more contained, reflecting a market environment that is more selective and arguably more cautious. Even among retail traders, interest has coalesced around GameStop itself rather than reigniting a sector-wide phenomenon.

Burry’s renewed involvement also speaks to a broader debate about value investing in the current cycle. With U.S. equity indices trading near record highs and concentration in a handful of large technology companies dominating performance, investors like Burry have been vocal about the scarcity of assets that offer a clear margin of safety. By highlighting GameStop’s tangible asset base and governance structure, he is implicitly critiquing a market he views as complacent about risk.

Still, significant uncertainties remain. GameStop operates in a structurally challenged segment of the retail landscape, and the path from balance-sheet strength to sustainable earnings growth is far from guaranteed. Cohen’s strategy has yet to fully articulate how the company will generate durable cash flows beyond cost control and financial optionality. For sceptics, the stock remains a story in search of a business model that can thrive in a digital-first gaming ecosystem.

Burry appears comfortable with that ambiguity, framing it as the price of asymmetry rather than a flaw in the thesis. By leaning on tangible value and long-term stewardship, he is betting that patience itself will become an asset. In doing so, he is attempting to recast one of the market’s most polarizing stocks as something more conventional, even conservative, than its reputation suggests.

It is not clear for now if the reclassification will hold. But some analysts believe that it will depend less on market sentiment and more on execution over time. However, Burry’s re-entry has reignited debate around GameStop, not as a vehicle for speculative fervor, but as a test case for whether value investing can still find footholds in unexpected places.