Champaign County task force debates draft data center ordinance: renewables, storage, enforceability and decommissioning

The Champaign County Data Center Activities Task Force spent much of its July 6 meeting debating a draft ordinance that would impose energy‑use and grid‑impact conditions on large data centers proposed for unincorporated parts of the county.

Director John Hall introduced a memorandum proposing requirements including energy efficiency, a minimum share of clean energy capacity, and battery storage for large data centers. Hall and other members framed the proposal as a way to use data center investment to accelerate renewables while protecting local infrastructure and services.

Residents at the meeting urged strict controls. Deborah Kempker Montgomery said the process must be transparent and warned that NDAs can block public answers: "If an NDA is required, it should be a non‑starter for our community," she said. Another speaker suggested data centers should fund distributed rooftop solar for households rather than rely solely on remote generation.

Key debate points

- Percent clean energy and measurement: The draft uses 25% nameplate on‑site renewable capacity as a reference. Some members argued that number is too low; others said an on‑site requirement can be infeasible at hyperscale and that allowing deliverable off‑site or in‑state renewables (a "bring‑your‑own" model) would make higher percentages attainable. Staff flagged that tracking and verifying new off‑site renewables can be technically complex without state policy tools.

- Storage and backup: Members agreed draft language should clearly require battery storage (not diesel backup) if the intention is to count storage toward reliability. Several members emphasized that the county should avoid language that inadvertently rewards on‑site diesel generation as "storage."

- Permitting and special uses: County staff explained that when a solar array is proposed primarily to support a data center it is treated as a solar array requiring its own special‑use permit; reviewers said both the data center and supporting array have been handled by special‑use permit processes in prior cases.

- Jobs and labor: Some members asked whether project labor agreements (PLAs) or local‑preference hiring could be required. Staff said this raises legal questions and may be limited by state law; the task force agreed to refer the question to county legal counsel.

- Enforceability limits: Staff reminded members the county is not home rule and that statutory limits cap fines and penalties; as a result enforcement tools available to the county may be modest relative to the resources of large developers.

- Modular nuclear prohibition: Draft language borrowed from a template proposed to prohibit small modular reactors and other on‑site nuclear generation for data centers. Members chose to keep the prohibition in the draft for now and noted any future developer could seek a waiver as part of a permit review.

- Decommissioning and stranded assets: Members raised concerns about long‑term stranded assets, rural road impacts, volunteer fire district capacity, and whether large metal data center buildings are truly "adaptable." The task force asked staff to return with options for decommissioning standards and bonding or other protections.

Next steps: Task force members asked staff to draft alternative language that would (1) test a higher clean‑energy percentage (including an off‑site/deliverable option), (2) clarify that storage refers to battery storage (not diesel), and (3) surface enforceability and PLA/legal questions for counsel. The group set its next meeting for July 13 to discuss backup generators, noise, vibration and minimum separations; no ordinance vote occurred.

The meeting included no formal votes on policy; approvals were only procedural (agenda and minutes).