Ridgerest council presses review of proposed Inyokern data center as residents warn of water, noise and privacy risks

Ridgerest — Residents filled council chambers on June 3 as the Ridgerest City Council convened a lengthy public discussion of a proposed Inyokern (Inyokarn) data center, pressing elected officials for transparency on water, power, noise and cumulative impacts and urging the council to take formal steps in the state review process.

Sean Hungerford, an attorney representing developer RNL Capital, joined remotely and said the company filed a roughly 1,300‑page application with the California Energy Commission that includes 20 technical studies covering water supply, biological resources, air quality, noise and other impacts. Hungerford described the developer as “local,” estimated roughly 1,600 construction jobs during build‑out and about 60 permanent positions afterward, and said the project could generate approximately $6 million in annual tax revenue.

But the bulk of the evening was taken up by residents and community groups who said the documented economic benefits do not outweigh the potential long‑term harms. “By building a centralized cloud database and license‑plate network, you haven’t protected Ridgerest — you’ve built a surveillance weapon that directly threatens livelihoods,” Jamie Jones told the council, referencing an existing plate‑reader deployment and demanding unredacted contract provisions and clearer ownership/retention rules for the town’s surveillance system.

Other speakers cited water as the overriding concern: several public commenters said the region’s groundwater adjudication is unresolved and warned the city should not commit scarce aquifer resources before the court process concludes. Mike Sonat, calling in by phone, told the council that groundwater experts have reached differing estimates of safe yield and alleged the basin’s modeling was incomplete or lost, arguments he said will be litigated in an upcoming Phase 2 adjudication.

Residents also raised potential collateral effects: higher electricity rates for ratepayers, fire and air‑quality risks tied to battery and equipment incidents, loss of dark skies used by tourism and the adjacent military base’s operations, and skepticism that the majority of construction jobs will stay local after projects finish. Union representatives and building‑trades speakers, by contrast, urged approval, stressing apprenticeship opportunities and local hiring commitments.

Faced with opposing testimony and a pending California Energy Commission completeness determination (staff noted a June 11 window), the council declined to take a final approval or rejection vote that night. Instead, members directed staff to formally pursue engagement in the CEC process — including researching petition‑to‑intervene options and related data‑access procedures — so the city can review technical submittals and make evidence‑based comments as environmental review proceeds.

What happens next: the CEC will first determine application completeness; if complete, it generally proceeds with a review timeline (staff explained a typical 180‑day window for review and potential public comment), after which local agencies such as Kern County would receive materials and permit applications. Council members asked staff to return with recommended follow‑up actions and to report on opportunities for independent third‑party technical review or joint oversight with neighboring agencies.

The council’s action to seek formal participation in the CEC process implicitly keeps Ridgerest in the regulatory loop without preempting technical review outcomes. The item is expected to return to the council once the CEC releases its completeness determination and as the administrative record develops.