Iren proposes 1,600‑MW data center in Pittsburg County; commissioners schedule second public hearing

Iren, a data‑center developer, described plans June 8 to build a two‑phase hyperscale facility on roughly 2,000 acres in Pittsburg County that would eventually house up to 1,600 megawatts of load, occupy about 10% of the site with buildings and, when complete, generate an estimated $24 million in annual taxes, company representatives said.

"We will secure power through PSO and are required to pay for 100% of the cost to connect the site to the grid as well as for transmission costs," Jason Date, Iren project development manager, said. He said Iren expects about 100 full‑time employees after construction and plans to provide $250,000 annually to local nonprofits as part of community grants, with additional community betterment payments included in the proposed project plan.

Attorney David Floyd, who outlined the Tax Increment Finance (TIF) process for the county, said Iren requested the TIF and that the abatement structure in the project plan is tiered: companies receive abatement only after construction milestones are met and the plan contemplates abatement up to 85% as the project is built. "This is not a tax increase; it is an abatement up to 85% and if they do not reach the 1,600 MW then they won't reach the 85% abatement," Floyd said. He also announced a second public hearing for June 22 at 6 p.m. for public comment.

Representatives from the Public Service Company of Oklahoma and state lawmakers provided context on electric rates and regulation. Jonathan Wynn of PSO told the board that current rate increases reflect generation and plant upgrades and are not caused by the proposed data center, and that PSO performed load testing related to the project. "The consumers' rates will not increase and Iren has paid up front for the infrastructure," Wynn said, while adding multiple regulatory and business factors affect retail bills.

Iren's technical team described cooling and water plans. John Gross, Iren's chief innovation officer, said the company uses liquid‑cooling in a closed‑loop system with a large initial fill followed by a very small annual make‑up—he described ongoing water use after initial fill as equivalent to roughly five households per facility year‑over‑year—and stated the company does not use "forever chemicals," saying the cooling fluid is water and propylene glycol and that any removed glycol would be trucked off‑site for disposal.

Those technical assurances did not satisfy some residents. Neighbors and attendees raised questions about where initial fill water will come from, potential long‑term impacts on aquifers, light and noise effects on a nearby observatory, potential effects on livestock, and whether independent third‑party studies of fiscal and environmental impacts have been completed. "We still don't know where the water is coming from," said a resident who asked to be identified as Zachary. Philip Scott, who said he operates an observatory within a quarter‑mile, urged stronger light‑mitigation measures and larger buffer zones.

Residents also pressed for clarity about taxes. Commissioner Charlie Rogers asked whether the facility would pay sales tax on electricity; Wynn said sales‑tax treatment depends on multiple factors, and neither PSO nor county legal counsel said there is a blanket exemption. Floyd said the Local Development Act governs whether the Board can place the matter before voters and described the petition and referendum process available after any approval.

Commissioners did not vote on the TIF or related agreements. The board unanimously approved routine procedural motions to open and later close the public hearing and adjourn. Floyd told the audience that the county will take public comment at the June 22 hearing and that the board may require additional information or third‑party assessments before acting.

The next procedural step: the Board will hold a second public hearing on June 22 at 6:00 p.m. at the Southeast Expo Center and Motor Speedway, Room 103, McAlester. If the project plan proceeds after the public process, final terms (including any county economic development agreement and required interlocal agreements among affected taxing entities) would have to be approved by the Board before any abatement takes effect.