Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Residents urge county to require independent studies for proposed Pronghorn (Antelope) data center
Loading...
Summary
Multiple public commenters told the commission the proposed Pronghorn/Antelope data center and associated infrastructure — including a cited 1.5‑gigawatt natural‑gas power plant and large footprint — pose risks to water supplies, air quality and property values and asked the commission to delay decisions and require third‑party studies at the developer’s expense.
During the meeting’s public comment period, several residents urged the Iron County Commission to require independent third‑party studies and to delay commission action on the proposed Pronghorn (also referred to in comment as the Antelope) data center.
Nicole Phillips (S14) told the commission that the county planning commission had signaled reluctance to require extensive third‑party reports for the Pronghorn project and urged the board to ask for such studies at the developer’s expense, saying there is ‘‘not a condition that can be placed on this project that will adequately mitigate the hazard that they can see coming.’’
Thomas Loveheart (S15), who identified himself as a Cedar City resident and candidate for state House District 71, said the project would release ‘‘millions of tons of poisonous emissions’’ and urged the commission to require the developer to use 100% renewable energy and to ensure protections such as frozen residential water and electricity rates so local households do not bear higher costs.
Mary Stultz (S16) read a statement from Marion Munn (read into the record) describing the proposal as a $30 billion industrial project with a 640‑acre footprint and a 1.5‑gigawatt natural‑gas power plant. The statement characterized the scale of the project as an existential risk to local water supplies, air quality and the desert landscape and requested that the commission delay any final decision beyond a previously discussed May 7 date to allow more public review and technical study.
Commissioners acknowledged the comments; no formal action to require studies or to delay the permit was recorded during this meeting. The public record at the meeting includes the residents’ requests and technical concerns; commissioners did not announce a subsequent public hearing date within the recorded proceedings.
Action requested by commenters: require independent third‑party environmental and water‑resource studies paid by the project proponent, and delay final decisions to allow public review.