Anderson County adopts moratorium on data centers, crypto mining and battery storage while officials study rules

Anderson County commissioners voted to impose a temporary moratorium on three proposed land uses—battery energy storage systems (BESS), cryptocurrency mining facilities and data processing centers—after a lengthy public hearing and sustained debate during the county’s regular meeting.

The commission’s action followed a summary from Harold Edwards of the Anderson County Regional Planning Commission, who told commissioners the three uses would be limited to industrial zones, require minimum 8‑acre sites and be subject to two levels of local review: first by the Board of Zoning Appeals for siting/variances, then by the Planning Commission for site‑plan approval. Edwards also said the draft rules would require an applicant to supply a utility letter certifying the project would cause “no adverse effect” on the community.

Commissioner McNab moved to ask the law director to review options for a moratorium; after discussion the motion was amended and the commission ultimately approved a two‑year moratorium (the board debated one vs. two years). The law director told commissioners a moratorium was legally possible and provided examples of other counties’ approaches. Commissioners cited concerns about public‑safety readiness, water availability, sound/vibration, and potential impacts on county infrastructure as reasons to pause rezoning or permitting while staff and the Planning Commission refine regulations.

The moratorium does not itself ban the three uses permanently; it pauses new approvals while staff gathers more information, consults experts, and refines the county’s regulatory framework. Commissioners stressed intent to preserve local authority and to avoid creating a permanent prohibition that might be vulnerable to legal challenge.

Why it matters: The moratorium gives planning staff and elected officials time to develop site‑specific requirements — including setbacks, emergency‑response plans, decommissioning assurances and utility‑service reviews — before permitting facilities that, according to speakers at the hearing, can draw substantial electricity and water. Proponents of regulation argued the pause is needed to ensure volunteer fire departments, water systems, and county emergency management can safely support these facilities; supporters of the industries urged clear, balanced rules that allow economic development with protections.

Key details and next steps: The draft zoning language discussed during the hearing includes an 8‑acre minimum in industrial zones, a required utility letter about community impacts, and multi‑step local review. The commission directed the law director and planning staff to prepare the legal and technical work needed during the moratorium, and to hold public forums and planning‑commission hearings as part of that process. The moratorium passed by voice vote; commissioners did not record a roll‑call tally in the meeting minutes provided.

What was said (representative quotes): “We do need to act in the confines of the law… I’d like the law director to review the options for a moratorium,” Commissioner McNab said when introducing the item. Planning Commission member Harold Edwards summarized the draft rules: “They’re not going to be permitted all over the county, only in approved industrial zones after review and approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Planning Commission.” Commissioner Beauchamp, citing local emergency resources and water, urged a two‑year study period: “Until we get more information… putting a moratorium on this right now for two years so we can gather information here from the public… is important.”

Caveats and open questions: Public commenters presented a range of numerical claims about water and energy use that were not verified during the hearing (for example, different speakers cited varying daily and per‑transaction water figures). The commission’s pause is intended to allow staff to vet such figures, consult utilities and emergency responders, and develop enforceable requirements. The law director and planning staff will return with research and draft language for further public review.

Next procedural step: Planning staff and the law director will prepare legal analyses and draft regulatory language during the moratorium period; the Planning Commission will hold additional hearings and the county will schedule public forums to collect technical expertise and community feedback.