St. Louis committee adopts technical amendments to data-center rules, holds bill for more review

The St. Louis Urban Development and Zoning Committee on Tuesday adopted three committee amendments to Board Bill 49, the proposed zoning rules for data centers, then agreed to hold the bill for additional review and planning commission consideration rather than advancing it immediately to the full Board of Aldermen.

Alderman Anne Schweitzer, the bill sponsor, introduced amendments clarifying applicability to existing facilities, screening requirements for standalone fuel storage and generator enclosures, and reporting and performance metrics for expanded or altered sites. The committee approved amendment 9 and amendment 10 by roll-call (each recorded as six ayes) and adopted amendment 11 by unanimous consent.

The measure has prompted extensive public comment and contention over renewable-energy conditions and community oversight. Joe DeLay, a local businessman, told the committee: "Please do not pass Bill 49 out of committee today," saying Ameren had told stakeholders the bill's renewable-energy credit requirements "are unattainable" in the bill's current form. Henry Eubank of Greater Saint Louis Inc. warned the committee that the combination of a 50% pre-occupancy renewable target and 95% by year 10, coupled with a local REC cap, "acts as a de facto ban on major data center development in the city of Saint Louis."

The Missouri Coalition for the Environment presented research on heat effects. Elise Schafer, the group's presenter, said studies show data centers "are increasing the temperature by 4 degrees" on average within a 10-kilometer radius of some centers and cited a case study equating one facility's heat output to that of "approximately 40,000 households." Schafer and multiple residents argued that current setbacks (300 feet for standard centers, 600 feet for major centers) and monitoring requirements should be strengthened to protect public health.

Schweitzer disputed characterizations of the bill as an outright ban, noting that the micro data-center category is not subject to the stricter renewable requirements and describing the amendments as compromises to balance investment and the city's adopted sustainability plan. She also said the bill now includes clearer definitions distinguishing "bundled" and "unbundled" renewable energy credits and allows time-limited compliance adjustments at the five-year mark.

Committee members split over timing. Some members, citing unfinished questions and recent changes introduced within 48 hours, urged delaying the bill to allow more time for deliberation and meetings with planning staff and stakeholders. Vice Chair Sonia and Ald. Browning stressed the urgency of putting regulations in place after a major data-center approval occurred in the city without these rules. Ultimately the sponsor agreed to hold Board Bill 49, as amended, and the clerk entered on the record that the item will return to the HUD committee next Tuesday at 11 a.m. for continued work and further coordination with the planning commission.

Votes at a glance - Adopt amendment 9 to Board Bill 49: passed by roll call, 6–0 (McComb, White, Vice Chair Sonia, Browning, Aldrich, Chair Clark Hubbard — recorded as aye). - Adopt amendment 10 to Board Bill 49: passed by roll call, 6–0 (same recorded aye votes). - Adopt amendment 11 to Board Bill 49: adopted by unanimous consent (no roll call recorded). - Committee action: Board Bill 49 was held for further committee consideration and planning commission review; no final committee vote on the bill as a whole was taken.

Schweitzer said she will continue outreach and discussions with colleagues and stakeholders before the next committee meeting. The sponsor and multiple committee members emphasized both the need to protect residents' health and the desire to craft standards that are administrable and attainable. The committee received seven pieces of written testimony at the meeting.

The bill will return to the HUD committee next Tuesday at 11 a.m. for further deliberation; the sponsor said planning commission review will occur as required before third reading if changes are made.