SPARTANBURG – Absent statewide rules, South Carolina counties are hitting pause on the development of data centers to give them time to set their own standards.
Meanwhile, hundreds of residents showed up for a three-hour meeting in downtown Spartanburg last week with state environmental regulators about a $2.8 billion data center already under development in the Upstate county.
The meeting came four days after the county council took its first, unanimous vote on a one-year moratorium on future data center development.
The largest of these centers — known as hyperscalers — are facing pushback nationwide amid a rush to build the computing necessary to support rapid advancements in artificial intelligence. The opposition is due in large part to the massive amount of energy required by the facilities, which include huge banks of computer servers, power and cooling systems and other components, a pain point for residents who are seeing their own monthly power bills continue to rise.
In addition to Spartanburg, Greenwood County started the process last week for its own 12-month pause.
Chesterfield and Newberry counties enacted ordinances early this month. Newberry County Council took its moratorium up after voting down a proposal that would have sold property in a county-owned industrial park to a data center developer.
And Colleton County, where a gigawatt data center previously was proposed for property not far from the environmentally sensitive ACE Basin, council took its first vote last month on a six-month moratorium as it reconsiders zoning rules that would have made the massive center possible in the first place.
Spartanburg’s moratorium impacts all pending applications that have not been finalized and can be extended beyond 12 months by a vote of council.
The moratorium also directs staff to research where in the county would be appropriate for future data center development. The council started the process after a new data center company applied for a land development permit for a site where a bitcoin mining facility has operated for several years.
Council members had hoped the state Legislature would have enacted state regulations on the facilities but a pair of Senate proposals never made it to the floor for a vote this session.
“I can understand counties wanting to be proactive,” said Sen. Tom Davis.
The Beaufort Republican authored one of the proposals setting rules for where the centers could be developed, as well as setting standards for water usage, power costs and noise control.
The bill would have created an office within the state Department of Environmental Services to handle permitting of the centers and identify areas of the state best suited to house them.
A data center in the ACE Basin — a 350,000-acre undeveloped estuary in the Lowcountry named for the Ashepoo, Combahee, and Edisto rivers that feed it — is “just ridiculous,” Davis said.
“It really is frustrating to me that we didn’t get a bill passed,” Davis said. “I understand counties, absent the state implementing these baseline protections, simply taking the approach that they don’t want data centers built until we have safeguards in place.”
In addition to the newly proposed data center blocked by the new moratorium, residents of Spartanburg County successfully pushed back on a different data center proposal by a company called TigerDC, which was seeking property tax incentives to develop in the county. In February, the company withdrew its application.
Now disgruntled residents and environmental groups have turned their attention to a project already underway.
NorthMark Strategies, along with its subsidiary Valara Holdings, is converting a former Kohler kitchen and bath manufacturing plant into a computing center.
As part of the development, the company plans to generate its own power for the center, rather than adding demand to the grid as other such centers have done.
State regulators initially approved the company for about 50 megawatts. But the company has since sought to amend its application to a total of 450 megawatts.
It’s that application that brought hundreds of residents to a downtown Spartanburg auditorium Thursday to voice their concerns. In addition to the public hearing, the company held an online informational session Wednesday.
While the center doesn’t raise the same concerns over impacts to residential customers’ power bills, air pollution as well as noise from the generators dominated the conversation, said Emily Wyche, an attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center.
The facility is already permitted for 24 natural gas generators that each produce 2,000 kilowatts. The new request, submitted to the state Department of Environmental Services in March, asks for an additional five 17-megawatt natural gas combustion turbines and six 54-megawatt natural gas combustion turbines.
The increase led the Southern Environmental Law Center to raise the alarm about potential air pollution at the facility.
In addition to going through the environmental permitting process, the Southern Environmental Law Center has petitioned state utility regulators to conduct their own review. It is also asking the Public Service Commission to halt construction at the site until a final ruling can be made.
Wyche argues that the Public Service Commission takes a more holistic view, “weighing the different sort of impacts against alleged benefits of a facility,” rather than just looking at it through an environmental lens.
The hearing for the construction pause is scheduled for July 13 in Columbia.
How is Fairfield preparing for arrival of data centers?
By Barbara Ball / The Voice of Fairfield County
WINNSBORO – Although no formal proposal has been made by Fairfield County government in regard to plans and boundaries to regulate data centers in Fairfield County, there has been widespread discussion locally that at least one data center has obtained an option on property within the county.
Although Fairfield County officials insist no data center project has officially been presented to the county, local leaders said they are beginning to prepare for the possibility that one or more of the massive artificial intelligence facilities could try to locate here.
County Councilman Don Goldbach told The Voice Monday that the county is not aware of a proposed data center in Fairfield County. State Sen. Everette Stubbs also said he has not been told where a rumored project might be located.
Still, Stubbs said two weeks ago that the county should begin establishing policies and regulations prior to any proposals are submitted.
That process appears to have begun at 10 a.m., Tuesday morning, July 7, when a quorum (4) of Fairfield County Council members met in a scheduled, but unannounced, meeting, with Rep. Annie McDaniel Jenkinsville Mayor Ginyard, and a Jenkinsville Town Council member. Councilman Carl Bell, who favors a moratorium on data centers in the county until council establishes some guidelines for the centers, said at the meeting that he has been studying data centers in general and around the world and in this area specifically and will report on what he said is his non-conclusive findings at the county council meeting to be held Monday night, July 13, at 6 p.m.
The approximately two-hour meeting included presentations by engineer Chris Tollerson of the Central Midlands Council of Governments and attorney Jordan Geri, who represented ClimateXChange. Both speakers participated remotely.
According to County Administrator Vic Carpenter, the presentations were intended to provide factual information about what data centers are, the impacts they can have on communities, and how local governments can prepare before companies begin seeking approvals.
“I thought they were trying to be very factual,” Carpenter said. “They were trying to focus on what is known, what is real data, and just sharing it, making sure people know and giving some advice and thoughts on ways to prepare for potential future data centers.”
McDaniel, who organized the meeting, has urged the county to move quickly for a moratorium on large AI-related data center developments in Fairfield County until council has regulations in place governing where they can locate and how they operate.
A major topic of Tuesday’s presentation focused on developing local regulations before negotiations ever begin with a developer.
Carpenter said the presenters discussed “toolboxes” already developed to help counties and states establish clear policies addressing issues such as environmental impacts, public infrastructure, utilities projects and public health.
“That was a big part of their conversation,” the attorney said. “There are toolboxes that local governments and state governments should keep in front of them when starting to negotiate with data centers.”
The presenters encouraged counties to adopt clear standards before developers arrive, Carpenter said.
“They were definitely giving some thoughts on making sure local communities are prepared before they ever start talking to data centers, so they’ve got the rules laid out up front and the rules are firm,” he said.
Carpenter said Tuesday’s discussion did not delve into technical issues such as reducing the constant noise generated by data centers or limiting water and electrical consumption.
“They didn’t get into technical things like that,” he said. “I’m sure there will be future meetings bringing people who can talk about noise, water use, electric use and different ways of addressing those.”
He said county officials appear committed to studying the issue before any project reaches Fairfield County.
“When asked whether additional meetings are likely. Carpenter had this to say: “I think members of council have shown a real desire to make sure that we address this up front before it becomes a problem.”
He added that council members want to learn from the experiences of other counties that have already dealt with data center proposals.
“I think there’s a real desire on their part, certainly individually and collectively, to look at what’s happening in other counties and make sure it doesn’t happen here,” Carpenter said.
The Voice asked Carpenter’s about the possibility that Fairfield County’s nuclear plant – particularly it’s two new units waiting in the wings – could make it particularly attractive to large technology companies.
Carpenter acknowledged that the county is aware of that possibility.
“We know that is reality,” he said. “That’s going to drive a lot of this”
Any data center proposed on rural property would still require industrial zoning approval before construction could begin.
The meeting itself may draw scrutiny because four county council members—a quorum of the seven-member council—were present, yet no public notice was issued beforehand.
According to Carpenter, council members Clarence Gilbert Ruth, Oren Gadson, Doug Bell and Peggy Swearingen attended. The meeting was organized through McDaniel’s office.
Despite questions surrounding the meeting notice, Carpenter said the discussion made one point clear: county leaders want Fairfield County to establish its own rules before data center developers come knocking.
“There was definitely a lot of concern over the potential impact,” Carpenter said, “and a desire to make sure that we do not get into a situation where we are not in control of the process and the outcomes.”