Macon County residents ask for data center moratorium

Macon County officially made it more difficult for server-based facilities like AI data centers to establish in the county limits, with a full moratorium to be discussed in the future. The decision came during the packed Aug. 11 Board of Commissioners meeting, where the board held a public hearing on a set of proposed changes to its High Impact Land Use Ordinance recommended by the county Planning Board. Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the changes and directed the county attorney to further examine options for implementing a moratorium. Opposition to data centers in Macon County has been consistent, with dozens of public commenters showing to express varying degrees of opposition to the development of centers for environmental, economic, ethical and civil rights reasons. At the Aug. 11 meeting, 12 speakers showed, most of them not only pushing the county to add anti-data center measures to its ordinances but to issue a full moratorium against AI data centers following the lead of other local governments in North Carolina. The approved change to Macon County's High Impact Land Use Ordinance impose restrictions on hours of operations and require mitigation efforts to reduce the impact of noise, dust and light pollution of certain businesses, including concrete and asphalt manufactures, and as of 2023 server-based facilities like cryptocurrency mining facilities and AI data centers. In early June, County Planner Joe Allen and county attorney Eric Ridenour proposed changes that would revise language in the ordinance to clarify data centers as falling within the ordinance. These changes state the high impact businesses could operate only from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Allen and Ridenour said they believe the extreme operation requirements will make it effectively impossible for a data center to operate in Macon County. Ridenour warned against attempting to ban data centers outright, fearing the legal overreach could drag the county into a lawsuit. While some buildings have "data centers" already – historically, on-site servers designed to process and use information – the term data center has come to describe more specifically large, multi-acre facilities which use millions of gallons of water, vast amounts of electricity and bring in very few jobs, according to an article from the Roosevelt Institute. One speaker at the July Board of Commissioners meeting also argued the technology, despite more than $1.5 trillion in investment, has yet to generate a profit according to isaiprofitable.com. At the Aug. 11 meeting, Carol Light of Scaly Mountain asked the county impose a moratorium "while you continue to strengthen this ordinance." Light argued a data center's strain on water and energy infrastructure is too great to allow the risk of one in Macon County. She said the county already protects Cartoogechaye Creek and Cullasaja River watersheds, which help supply local drinking water, but a large server facility could use "thousands of gallons of water a day" for cooling. Other speakers clarified some centers draw millions of gallons of water. She said the energy draw for these centers would necessitate large, hazardous batteries and on-site generators which pose a further risk. Mace Lucas, Constance Neely, Lorraine Ross and Amy Patterson all cosigned Light's request for a moratorium on the facilities so the county can close loopholes and tighten restrictive language, with Neely saying 20 North Carolina counties, including neighboring Clay County, have paused new applications on data centers while considering stricter rules. Ross also expressed concerns smaller, more traditional data centers which don't produce large drains on infrastructure might be wrapped up in the changes as presented. She advocated for a workgroup to be established to bring "more experts to the table" when coming up with ordinance changes. Elise Mullins, Sarah Johnson, Heather Johnson, Mary Ingram and Katie Moore all spoke specifically about the environmental impact of data centers, from water to electricity to carbon emissions, with Moore especially discussing the need to curb greenhouse gas emissions to prevent climate change. Betsy Baste criticized the board for its decision to appoint Marc Hehn to the planning board, who she said has an NDA (non-disclosure agreement) with a data center company and should have recused himself from the decision to recommend amendments to the ordinance. Hehn voted in favor of the recommendation. Hehn mentioned his NDA and previous experience with a data center at the Aug. 6 Planning Board meeting, where he said he doesn't believe Macon County has the water capacity to entertain the presence of a large data center. During the July 2 Planning Board meeting, Hehn said he was a utility manager for "a real data center" which did not produce the same noise and water issues community members are talking about today. Baste also said Hehn "did some bad stuff to his community where he lived in South Carolina." Hehn was fired as director of Berkeley County Water and Sanitation Authority in 2005 for allegedly giving false information on a water project which could have cost the county $500,000 in grants, according to September 2015 reporting from the Post and Courier of Berkeley County. Baste requested commissioners "take a hard look at your Planning Board and you consider who's on the Planning Board and what they stand to gain." Lisa Walker pushed back against Ridenour's assertion the proposed changes would effectively be a ban, saying, "the proposed changes communicate intent, but is a poor substitute for legally grounded land use strategy. It's easier to attack as arbitrary, preemptive beyond county authority or an unreasonable restriction on a lawful business. It also does not target the actual harms that were discussed earlier." Walker proposed a moratorium to buy time for the county to come up with stronger restrictions. Following the public comment period, Ridenour reiterated he believed the ordinance changes are sufficient to prevent data centers from popping up in Macon County and said he was uncertain as to how other counties issued moratoriums against data centers while complying with the law and not opening themselves up to lawsuits from developers. "I'm not criticizing their decision, but they have to find 'alternatives considered,'" he said. "They have to prove how the moratorium will address the problem. In my mind, I'm saying that 'you're going to look at it further' is not addressing the problems, and then you have to have the determination to work on it. So if any of those are attacked and successful then you've got nothing … you can regulate them, and if you regulate it to the point that it's not going to happen you're in a better, stronger legal position than if you take the moratorium or if you sit back and study it further." However, Ridenour said he would need to study the options more before he could make a full recommendation on what the county should do. After the board's unanimous vote to approve the recommended changes to the ordinance, they agreed to discuss a moratorium at a later date after Ridenour has had a chance to further research moratoriums and the legal implications of pursuing one at the county level. Shelby Powell can be reached at reporter@thefranklinpress.com.

Macon County residents ask for data center moratorium

Contact Us