Data Developer Arrives At Commissioners Court

Somewhat as expected, Tom Green County Commissioners did not move to instate a proposed moratorium on data center and green energy projects in precinct four.

In front of a well attended courtroom, Commissioner Shawn Nanny held a thick stack of papers up, he said was a copy of the lawsuit that was served to Hill County Commissioners Court after their attempt to pass a similar moratorium earlier this month.

The lawsuit is seeking damages in an amount that well exceedes the budget of Tom Green County — in the hundreds-of-millions.

This echoed the warnings of Asst. County Attorney Sandy Rothband at last week’s meeting, as he warned that the county did not have the authority to impose a moratorium, and that the move would invite litigation.

Once again, no action was taken on the moratorium.

Read more about the previous meeting: Commissioners Table Data Center Moratorium

The proposal has garnered significant attention in recent weeks alongside similar data center developments both locally and nationwide, over concerns about infrastructure, resource use, and importantly, proximity to residential developments.

Many data developments have been significantly hindered and strictly regulated after public outcry, while others press on in even less regulated parts of the country.

In general, the meeting seemed to be a disappointment to many in attendance committed to fighting the data center, several of whom have been organizing opposition in the last month.

Beacon Data Centers, with intentions to develop a data center in Tom Green County, were asked to appear at commissioner’s court to detail their intentions for the site located off Farm-to-Market Road 2335 near Tankersley in Precinct 4.

We now know a few more details that were not available at the April 16 meeting, which introduced locals and the media to the development. Joseph Shovlin, Executive Vice President of Beacon, appeared to deliver the presentation.

Beacon’s Presentation

Many appeared openly bemused at Beacon’s presentation, expecting many answers to questions that Beacon says are still under study, and expected to be released within “four to six weeks,” with specifics like the exact size of the facilities, requirements for noise pollution standards and water management and re-use plans.

“So in terms of where we’re at in the process, we’re not at a hugely advanced stage,” said Shovlin. “In terms of studies, environmental, water, noise, those studies are still ongoing, many of those, and will conclude in the weeks and months ahead.”

These comments essentially summed the entire meeting up.

View the presentation made to commissioner’s court below.

The proposed facility is referred to as the “Westline” project, and Beacon currently estimate that about 70 percent of the land they want to purchase is “buildable,” at a total of 1,240 acres, with four proposed entrances.

At previous meetings, Beacon had mentioned consideration of air-cooled options but stated at this meeting they are planning to use “closed loop” water cooling systems.

Shovelin mentioned specifically that the use of evaporative cooling systems was deemed to be too wasteful of water resources.

San Angelo City Council, in session across the river on Tuesday morning, voted to amend its utility ordinance to require any potential data center developers to use a closed-loop water cooling systems, over concerns of overconsumption.

The county again lacks the ability to place the restrictions outright, and would only be able to require these regulations through contracts with the land owners.

Question Time

Since April, Pct. 4 Comm. Nanny has stated his opposition to data centers in both public meetings and at commissioners court, though every commissioner and Judge Lane Carter bore a lot of skepticism in their questioning.

Specifically, Judge Carter tried to nail down why other sites haven’t been mentioned during the presentation, such as land closer to San Angelo’s industrial park area. The story from Beacon remained: this is the site.

Though Nanny tried to nail down Shovlin on several points, including natural gas development, Beacon deferred to it’s disclaimer in its presentation that current plans are subject to change.

Other than the slideshow, few new details emerged from questioning from commissioners, other than to specify that Beacon would not be seeking tax abatements for the project, and that Beacon would continue communication with the court in the near future.

Commissioners did everything but directly name state leadership and representatives, including State Rep. Drew Darby, who represents District 72.

Commissioner Nanny referred to receiving “one heck of a response back from one of them that is laughable in my mind.”

While not referenced specifically, Darby’s statement from earlier in the year deferred opinion to the upcoming legislative session.

In general, many of the regulatory blindspots that have been built into the Texas system over the last many decades were on trial at the meeting, with commissioners specifically warning that further rollbacks to counties abilities to regulate land use are likely to come from Austin.

Public Comment Gets Noisy

Public comment continued to hammer on the same points brought up at many meetings before, and not without good reason, as many of the specific answers residents are craving are still not being offered up by the sites developers. Of note, was the development that Beacon plans to use natural gas generation to power the site, which came under criticism over environmental concerns.

Noise concerns were of particular interest to one resident, who sought to illustrate how loud 85 decibels truly is, and played a sound from a loudspeaker in the chamber until his decibel meter hit the mark. While the specific reference in mind was not cited by the speaker, measures in San Angelo have limited the ambient noise of data center developments not exceed 55 decibels at the property line.

Commissioner Nanny advised that community meetings, like the one the Concho Observer attended, would continue at Knickerbocker.