Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners press for clearer standards as state outlines data-center advisory plans
Summary
Berkeley County commissioners sought more information about a proposed Bennington-area data center after a state liaison outlined plans for minimum standards, an advisory board and possible community engagement; developers shared maps and officials discussed potential use of effluent for cooling.
Berkeley County commissioners said on May 14 they want stronger, clearer public standards after the state began outlining how proposed data centers would be evaluated and sited.
Commissioner Hardy, reporting on a Chamber of Commerce forum, said the state’s liaison for data centers, identified in the meeting as Mr. Morris, described plans to develop "a set of minimum standards" and to establish "an advisory board" to guide siting and community engagement. Developers from Penzance provided a map of properties in the Bennington-area site, Hardy said, and shared technical details about power and cooling that county officials had not previously received.
Why it matters: Data centers can bring tax revenue and jobs but also large demands on land, water and power. Commissioners said early public information gaps had created speculation and concern among residents; they sought a transparent process for standards and community input.
Hardy said the Bennington area was attractive to developers because of a nearby large substation offering substantial transmission capacity, and he relayed that the project team discussed cooling options that could rely heavily on effluent from a local wastewater treatment plant. "They said that may take care as much of 80% as of the cooling," Hardy told the commission, underscoring the technical trade-offs under consideration.
Hardy and colleagues also said the developer presented maps of properties that could be affected and that some landowners were willing to work with the developer. Commissioners urged state officials to provide more public detail and to proceed with a defined community‑engagement plan and advisory board that includes diverse local perspectives.
No formal decision was required at the meeting; commissioners said they will continue engagement with the state liaison and the developer and may call for additional briefings or public information sessions.
Next step: Commissioners said they will seek more data from the state liaison and developer and that county staff will share any new information with constituents when available.
