Planning commission seeks policies to limit utility impacts from data centers, and urges actions on utilities affordability and broadband competition

Thurston County planning commissioners on Aug. 27 agreed to add policy language to the Thurston 2045 utilities chapter aimed at protecting residents and ecosystems from the resource impacts of large, technology‑driven facilities such as data centers, and they asked staff to identify implementation actions to track energy and water demand from high‑intensity users.

Maya Tipel, senior planner with Thurston County Community Planning, presented draft language options and an implementation action item. Proposed policies included ensuring that growth of technology‑driven and emergent industries “does not compromise the long‑term availability and affordability of essential public resources, including water and power,” and safeguarding residents and ecosystems from adverse impacts on water and power availability and cost associated with large‑scale business development. Tipel also proposed an implementation action to evaluate mechanisms to track total energy and water usage by high‑intensity users and use that information to inform planning decisions.

“Puget Sound Energy tracks that and it is incredibly hard to get that kind of data right now,” Tipel said. Commissioners agreed the draft language was a reasonable start and broadened the scope to cover “technology and emergent industries.”

Public commenter Betsy Norton, who identified herself as an Olympia resident, showed photos of a gravel mine and urged the commission to consider natural‑resource impacts when reviewing utilities and large industrial uses.

Commissioners discussed examples from other states where high‑intensity users strained water and power supplies. Commissioner Daniel Bumbarger referenced news reports from Georgia, where the growth of data centers contributed to groundwater stress in some watersheds, and suggested the county should avoid giving perpetual, unfettered water access to large users. “Their streams are running dry, and their residents who are largely poor folks … are left with no water because these data centers get priority on it,” he said.

Commissioners supported three consensus items for inclusion in the utilities chapter and implementation appendix: (1) add a policy to ensure technology and emergent industries do not compromise long‑term availability and affordability of water and power; (2) add a policy to safeguard residents and ecosystems from adverse impacts on utility availability and costs associated with large‑scale development; and (3) add an implementation action to evaluate mechanisms for tracking the total energy and water demand of high‑intensity users (for example data centers) and to use that information for future planning and policy decisions. The commission recorded the agreement as a consensus direction to staff (implementation action to be developed for BOCC review).

Commissioners also discussed affordability and competition for utilities and broadband. Tipel and commissioners noted that many rural residents rely on wells and are not on municipal systems, limiting local control over water pricing. Commissioners urged staff to work with the Office of Housing and Homelessness Prevention and other agencies to investigate dis/ incentives to preserve housing and to explore incentives for broadband and competition (including fiber‑optic rollout) as resilience and affordability measures. Commissioner Colin Bartlett observed that where fiber providers enter a market, incumbent providers often reduce prices.

Ending: Staff will draft policy language and an implementation action for energy/water‑use tracking and will include references to efforts to expand broadband competition and investigate affordability options. Those items will be included in the consolidated plan draft forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners.