Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff briefs commission on data centers, urging proactive standards for power, water and noise
Summary
Clay County planning staff presented a briefing on data centers, outlining their power, cooling and water demands, case studies of local impacts, and recommended the county define data centers in its land‑use code and require measurable application data (CUPs, water and noise reporting, generator limits).
Planning staff presented a wide‑ranging briefing on data centers and recommended the county consider proactive land‑use standards and application requirements to avoid surprises if large facilities are proposed in Clay County.
Matt (planning staff) told commissioners that data centers vary widely—from small edge facilities to hyperscale campuses serving cloud providers—and each type has different needs for power, fiber and cooling. He said larger hyperscale facilities can require a dedicated substation and transmission upgrades. "If you use the Internet, you are using a data center," Matt said, summarizing the ubiquity of the infrastructure.
Staff reviewed national energy trends and potential local impacts. He said data centers’ share of U.S. electricity use rose from under 2% in 2014 to about 4.4% in 2023 and described an estimate of roughly 5.5% in 2025 with continued growth projected; that growth, he said, can require substantial utility upgrades and could create competition for power or water resources in extreme cases. Matt cited case studies to illustrate risks and responses: Loudoun County, Virginia’s "Data Center Alley" (heavy clustering and later pushback); a Prince William County rezoning that was invalidated for insufficient public notice; West Des Moines where Microsoft funded utility upgrades; The Dalles, Oregon where Google’s water use drew public scrutiny; the XAI facility in Memphis where temporary generators became long‑term sources of noise and emissions; and a Becker, Minnesota case where the state regulator stepped in over concerns about large backup generators.
Matt recommended the commission consider defining "data center" in the land development code, identifying appropriate zoning districts, requiring conditional use permits with measurable standards (setbacks, screening, noise limits), requiring water‑use reporting and generator limits, and planning for phased expansion. He noted some elements—such as energy‑generation above a statutory threshold and certain transmission matters—may fall under state Public Utilities Commission (PUC) jurisdiction, meaning the county could prepare standards and comments but might not be able to unilaterally regulate very large projects.
Commissioners asked practical questions about cooling systems, wastewater treatment and where large volumes of cooling water are handled; staff replied that treatment and utility upgrades are managed at the utility level and that some cooling systems (evaporative) use large volumes of water while others (liquid or dry cooling) use less. A commissioner asked how a county typically first learns of a potential project; Matt said it varies but staff has been the point of contact and that the county had fielded one inquiry to date for Clay County. Several commissioners suggested researching neighboring counties’ ordinances or preservation districts as models.
Staff offered to prepare a follow‑up presentation on the PUC process and to monitor state and national developments; commissioners indicated they would like a PUC briefing and further research in the third quarter to inform possible ordinance amendments.
