Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident warns commissioners a proposed hyperscale data center could overwhelm local grid and require transmission easements
Summary
Therese Hartnett told the Finney County Board she is concerned energy companies and planning changes signal an advanced stage for a hyperscale data center that could need up to 500 megawatts of power — roughly 10 times Garden City’s current load — and that new transmission lines could trigger eminent‑domain impacts for landowners along US‑83.
Therese Hartnett, a Garden City resident who spoke during public comment, said she is worried county leaders have been given too little information about data‑center proposals and the related power infrastructure.
"The energy companies seemed to me they were saying that this hyperscale data center is 500 megawatts," Hartnett said, adding that Garden City uses about 50 megawatts. She said the energy firms told the board they were moving past nondisclosure agreements, which prompted her to ask how far along plans really are.
Hartnett asked why the county would allow new transmission capacity that she fears could be built to serve large private loads rather than local needs, and raised eminent‑domain concerns for property owners adjacent to US‑83. "When you do transmission lines, you ... get eminent domain, legally," she said.
Why it matters: Hartnett framed the data‑center discussion as a potential long‑term land‑use and community‑cost issue. She questioned assurances that residents would not see higher utility costs and pressed the board for clearer, public answers about the energy companies’ timelines and whether private projects are driving large transmission upgrades.
Board response and next steps: Chair (Speaker 4) thanked Hartnett for her comments; no formal board action on the data‑center topic was taken at this meeting. The transcript records that staff and commissioners discussed regional transmission and zoning at earlier and later items, but the meeting did not include a formal vote or new policy directing staff to take a specific step on data‑center siting or transmission planning.
