Primary parallel:
The oil and gas pipeline consent battles of the 2010s followed the same trajectory: state utility commissions and federal regulators initially controlled siting; communities and tribal nations shifted contested approvals to county zoning boards, state courts, and water-rights filings. The Dakota Access Pipeline case (2016 onward) demonstrated that federal eminent-domain authority does not override water-quality and consultation challenges litigated at lower tiers. Data-centre consent fragmentation is on a comparable trajectory, accelerated because the build cycle is shorter and the demand signal is louder.
Counter-parallel:
The US wind-power build-out of 2008-2015 had a different consent profile: state-level renewable portfolio standards created top-down siting demand that overrode local opposition more often than not. Data centres lack that top-down policy mandate; AI Growth Zone designations and federal data-centre support are softer instruments than RPS, which gives the local layer more leverage.