Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Residents urge commissioners to delay, require studies for proposed Antelope (Pronghorn) data center
Loading...
Summary
Multiple public commenters told the Iron County Commission the proposed data center and associated power plant present existential risks to water, air quality and property values; they urged third‑party studies, renewable‑power commitments, and a decision delay to allow fuller public review.
Several residents used the public‑comment period to urge commissioners to slow review of a proposed large data center (referred to by speakers as the Pronghorn/Antelope project) and require independent studies of environmental and property impacts.
Nicole Phillips of Cedar City (speaker 14) asked the commission to direct the planning commission to require third‑party studies at the project's expense, saying, "Perhaps they don't want to see what might turn up when they get the results of those, but I think that you should see that, and I think that it should be at the expense of Pronghorn project." She argued conditions presented so far would not adequately mitigate the hazards she anticipates.
Thomas Loveheart (speaker 15) said he is a full‑time public employee and a candidate for state House District 71, and urged elected officials to protect working people from potential price impacts and pollution. "We must demand now before these things get built ... that it'll be powered 100% by renewable energy so that the millions of tons of emissions don't poison the lungs of my family and my neighbors," Loveheart said, adding that if developers claim to bring their own electricity the county should ensure residents do not see higher utility or water costs.
Mary Stultz (speaker 16) read a public submission from Marion Munn that described the scale of the proposal as a "$30,000,000,000 industrial proposal" with a claimed 1.5‑gigawatt natural gas power plant and a 640‑acre footprint. The statement requested a delay beyond the May 7 decision date noted at a prior meeting to allow fuller public review and due diligence.
Commissioners acknowledged the comments and said they would keep the concerns in mind as related planning and hearings proceed; no formal action was taken during the public comment period. The meeting record shows opponents raising three closely related concerns: potential long‑term strain on limited water supplies, air‑quality impacts from large fossil‑fuel generation, and effects on property values and local landscapes.
There was no substantive response in the record from project advocates or developers during the meeting to answer the specific technical claims raised by commenters; commissioners did not adopt any immediate moratorium or new requirements at this session.
Next steps, as noted in the meeting, remain with the planning commission and any permitting authorities; residents requested that commissioners encourage third‑party studies and consider delaying decisions to allow additional analysis.
