Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council to demand full environmental review of proposed AI data center
Summary
Residents urged Ridgecrest officials to oppose or require a full CEQA review of a proposed AI-ready data center in Inyokern/Inukern, citing groundwater overdraft, possible diesel-generator emissions, and uncertain long-term costs and jobs; council agreed to agendize the issue for further discussion.
Residents filled Ridgecrest City Council chambers on May 6 to oppose a proposed AI data center planned near Inyokern, urging the council to press state and county agencies for more disclosure and to require a full environmental review before approvals proceed.
"Water is not an expendable resource in our region," said Sarah Halsey, who described the Indian Wells Valley as a high-desert ecosystem struggling with groundwater overdraft and said the project's likely cooling and backup-generation needs posed unacceptable environmental risks. Kelly Cuts, another resident, urged the council to demand a full California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review rather than a small power plant exemption (SPPE) and to require guarantees about who will pay for needed transmission and infrastructure upgrades.
Speakers said the project's initial phase was described in application materials as roughly 35 megawatts, with the possibility of later expansion to 70 and up to 99 megawatts; both residents and staff cited concern that the cumulative demand would stress local water and power systems. Several commenters also cited the use of diesel backup generators and potential air-quality impacts.
Mayor Endicott and staff told the public that, to the city's knowledge, the full application had not yet been deemed complete by the California Energy Commission (CEC) and that additional materials were expected; staff outlined the CEC review steps (completeness determination, environmental documents and public-comment period of 30'45 days, and later final action). Councilmembers asked staff and legal counsel about what types of written comments or letters the city could submit and what the council's jurisdictional limits were.
Councilmember remarks during the meeting indicated support for agendizing a formal discussion; one councilmember proposed sending a letter to the CEC expressing opposition to an SPPE for the project on the basis of anticipated high water and power demands and other environmental impacts. The motion to agendize a discussion and consider coordinated comment was seconded and the council directed staff to bring the item forward for a future meeting in early June so the public could be fully heard.
No binding policy change or position was adopted that night; the council emphasized it had limited permitting authority but could submit comments to, and coordinate with, Kern County, the California Energy Commission, the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority, the air district and other agencies during the CEC review process.
