Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Entergy, Central Arkansas Water and Avaya brief Pulaski County on power, water and wastewater for proposed data center
Summary
Utility and developer representatives told the Quorum Court that Entergy can serve the load under firm contracts, Central Arkansas Water has capacity and planned upgrades, and Avaya said first‑phase buildings will use closed‑loop cooling; residents pressed officials on guarantees, wastewater discharge and noise.
Entergy Arkansas, Central Arkansas Water (CAW) and the Avaya/Avio project team spent more than two hours May 26 answering Pulaski County justices’ and residents’ questions about how a proposed hyperscale data‑center would be powered, supplied with water and manage wastewater.
Lede and main takeaway: Entergy said large customers must sign contracts that cover interconnection and infrastructure costs and that the public service commission provides oversight; CAW described existing supply and treatment capacity and the project‑pay model for new mains; Avaya’s project manager said the first two buildings are designed for closed‑loop cooling (average ~200,000 gpd) and that executed electric service and infrastructure studies show the site can be served as planned.
Why it matters: Justices and residents repeatedly asked whether utility or developer promises would be legally binding and whether costs or environmental burdens could be shifted to ratepayers or nearby communities. Officials pointed to PSC reviews, developer contracts and ADEQ permits as mechanisms of regulatory oversight but acknowledged some details remain to be negotiated and documented.
Key claims and technical details presented to the court: - Entergy (Vintrell Thompson) said that hyperscale customers pay the full cost to serve them, that those revenues can deliver systemwide value and that contracts and PSC approval protect other customers. He cited a figure of roughly $1.7 billion in net customer benefit over the life of such contracts (company estimate).
- Central Arkansas Water (Tad Bohannon) said the system’s safe yield from Lake Winona and Lake Maumelle was stated at about 120 million gallons per day; average demand cited at ~67 million gallons/day and treatment capacity up to ~156 million gallons/day. CAW said it has no executed water contract with Avio yet and that developers are typically required to pay for new transmission or raw‑waterlines needed to serve large customers.
- Avaya/Avio (Tom Nessel) said the company has taken multiple permitting steps: county driveway permit, ADEQ stormwater plan approval, Army Corps nationwide permit application and an executed electric services agreement with Entergy. He said CAW provided a letter indicating existing infrastructure can serve up to 1,000,000 gpd and that Avaya’s initial two building phase is designed as closed‑loop cooling with average day demand around 200,000 gpd and sanitary sewer flows (~20,000 gpd) routed to the local sewer district.
Questions raised by justices and residents: whether backup generators create noise or emissions, whether wastewater discharge could be “too sanitized” for environmental reuse, who pays for new mains and treatment lines, whether the county can require guarantees in writing, and what emergency response capacity exists for transformer or battery fires. Avaya said noise studies and setback planning limit audible impacts at property lines (company projected under 55 dB at property lines) and said diesel/fuel use for emergency generators would be handled per permit and code; CAW and Avaya said wastewater discharges requiring treatment would be subject to ADEQ permits.
Documents and follow‑up: multiple justices asked for written copies of the noise study, the ADEQ stormwater filing and the electric service agreement filings to the PSC. Avaya offered to share studies and site‑plan materials and CAW and Entergy said they would provide clarifying documents and follow‑up to justices and planning staff.
Bottom line: utility and developer officials told the court they believe the site can be served without shifting costs to residential customers and that regulatory processes (PSC, ADEQ, Army Corps) and negotiated contracts are the mechanisms for oversight; residents and several justices demanded written, enforceable guarantees and greater transparency on permits and investor identity, and those requests helped precipitate the later moratorium action by the court.
