Denver’s Data Center Working Group convened for the first time on Friday, October 9, initiating a months-long process that could fundamentally reshape how the city regulates digital infrastructure. The inaugural four-hour meeting brought together a newly appointed 26-member panel, selected by Mayor Mike Johnston and Councilmembers Serena Gonzales-Gutierrez, Paul Kashmann, and Darrell Watson from a pool of more than 250 applicants. Rather than immediately debating specific policies, the group spent much of the session establishing ground rules, identifying credible sources of evidence, and framing the complex issues it will examine before issuing recommendations to the city.
The working group follows Denver’s one-year data center moratorium, which took effect May 21, 2026. The freeze came amid mounting opposition to CoreSite’s approximately 590,000-square-foot campus at 4900 Race Street in Elyria-Swansea. The industrial development sits immediately beside the Viña affordable housing complex, which includes a 150-unit family building and an adjacent 152-unit senior housing community nearing completion. While CoreSite's proximity to residential development intensified demands for regulatory oversight, the moratorium does not retroactively invalidate existing approvals. The working group's mandate is to develop recommendations for future developments and expansions, not reconsider CoreSite's previously approved project.
The debate is no longer confined to Denver. Across the metropolitan area, opposition to proposed data centers is intensifying as residents question their proximity to housing, demand for electricity and water, and potential environmental impacts. In Brighton, a proposed 2.5-million-square-foot data center campus near the Lochbuie border was withdrawn on October 6 following substantial neighborhood opposition. That same evening, Brighton City Council unanimously approved the first reading of a proposed one-year moratorium on new data center applications. The ordinance still requires a second reading, scheduled for October 20, before becoming law. The withdrawal and proposed moratorium represent another significant development in the region's increasingly contentious relationship with large-scale digital infrastructure.
Meanwhile, Aurora faces growing resistance to Vantage Data Centers' proposed Trident campus, an approximately 860,000-square-foot development at 23001 East 48th Avenue.
Residents of nearby communities, including The Reserve and Windler, have raised concerns about noise, backup generators, energy consumption, and the project's proximity to homes. The proposal has also exposed tensions surrounding existing zoning regulations, which permit data centers within the site's Airport District designation. Mayor Mike Coffman has publicly called for the project to be stopped, even acknowledging potential litigation risks. Aurora City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing Monday evening, October 12, on proposed amendments to the city's data center zoning regulations. Although the hearing concerns broader regulatory changes rather than a formal approval hearing for Trident, the proposal has become a focal point of the city's ongoing debate.
Against this increasingly contentious regional backdrop, Councilmember Watson emphasized the importance of meaningful participation during Denver's opening meeting, encouraging members to approach their responsibilities with sustained engagement rather than symbolic involvement. Much of the session focused on developing operating agreements, handling media inquiries, and determining how discussions should be communicated to the public. Some members argued that social media provides important accessibility for residents unable to follow lengthy livestreams, while others warned that incomplete or misleading interpretations could undermine trust in the process. Although broader operating guidelines were approved, specific provisions governing social media and final decision-making procedures were deferred.
Preliminary exercises also illustrated the difficult policy decisions ahead. Members considered three potential directions: prohibiting future data centers, accommodating substantial but realistic growth, or allowing moderate development within designated areas. Discussions touched on environmental justice, zoning, utility infrastructure, and whether data centers should face requirements different from other resource-intensive industries, including concrete production and indoor agriculture. Questions surrounding actual electricity demand, water consumption, and existing enforcement mechanisms underscored the need for additional technical information before meaningful recommendations can be developed.
The first meeting ultimately established a framework rather than producing substantive policy decisions. However, developments in Brighton and Aurora demonstrate that the questions facing Denver are already playing out throughout the metropolitan area. With neighboring jurisdictions considering different regulatory approaches, decisions made in Denver could influence where future data center investments occur and how surrounding communities respond. The coming months will test whether local governments can establish a regulatory framework that accommodates growing demand for digital infrastructure while addressing environmental impacts, utility capacity, and neighborhood compatibility.