Sierra Supervisors Weigh Moratorium on AI Data Centers

LOYALTON — Sierra County supervisors did not impose a moratorium on data centers Tuesday, choosing instead to return with an item that would establish a publicly noticed committee to study the facilities and the county’s regulatory options. The July 21 discussion paired repeated assurances that no project has been submitted with concerns about water, power, noise, air quality, fire risk, employment, and the future of the idle Loyalton mill site.

At the center of the debate is a project description found online but not in Sierra County’s permit files. As of Tuesday, the industry website Data Center Map continued to identify 100 Railroad Avenue as the planned “NYGC Loyalton,” a 10-megawatt AI data center powered by a refurbished 18-megawatt biomass cogeneration plant and a 72-megawatt-hour battery system.

The county first learned of the claim in January, when the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District contacted county officials after seeing online information suggesting NewYork GreenCloud had already built a data center at the site. Planning Director and Building Official Brandon Pangman said at the time the county had received no application or project information. Vice Chair Sharon Dryden also said property owner Jeff Holland told her he knew nothing about a data-center plan.

Pangman delivered the same message Tuesday. “We have not received any applications,” he said, adding that the Planning Department had received no proposal or request for a preliminary meeting about a data center.

Board Chair Paul Roen said he had been in repeated contact with the site’s current owner before the rumors surfaced and knew of no negotiations. Public attention has since generated outside interest, however, and Roen said he recently met with a person exploring possible opportunities at the property. No offer, option, or defined development emerged from the conversation, he said. “There is no project, to be clear.”

Residents first asked supervisors in May to put the issue on an agenda and consider a countywide moratorium on large data centers while local regulations are developed. A briefing submitted by resident Pat McCarthy for Tuesday’s meeting requested either a ban or a multiyear moratorium, arguing that the idle cogeneration plant could attract data-center operators seeking their own power source.

The briefing and public comments focused on the heavy power and cooling demands associated with some facilities, possible pressure on water supplies, higher utility rates, round-the-clock equipment noise, emissions from backup generation, battery fires, and uncertainty over permanent local jobs. The concerns were presented in general terms because no Sierra County project, facility design, cooling system, power plan, or water demand exists to evaluate.

Denise Brown urged the county to learn from communities where residents have complained about noise, wastewater, and rising utility costs. McCarthy said a moratorium would give Sierra County time to watch the technology and its regulation develop, while business owner Chelsea Johnson said potential effects on water, electricity, and quiet would threaten the quality of life residents and visitors value.

Loyalton resident Laura Sexton favored closing off applications now and reconsidering later. “Don’t leave even a crack of a door open for anybody who’s interested right now,” she told the board. Sexton also questioned whether a data center would offer enough local benefit to justify its potential effects.

County Counsel Andrew Plett said California law gives the board two principal routes to a temporary land-use moratorium. The law allows an interim prohibition on uses potentially conflicting with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal the county is studying or intends to study. Both routes require a four-fifths vote from supervisors. The ordinance must include findings of a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare and find that further permits or other entitlements would result in the threat.

The board could adopt an urgency interim ordinance without first holding the public hearing ordinarily required for a zoning ordinance. The measure would expire after 45 days unless, following notice and a public hearing, supervisors extended it for 10 months and 15 days and later for one additional year.

Alternatively, the board could provide notice and hold a public hearing before adopting the initial 45-day ordinance, then extend it for 22 months and 15 days after another noticed hearing. Either statutory route allows a maximum duration of two years, and the board would need evidence supporting the required findings. Plett said the county could quickly prepare an urgency ordinance for a special meeting, but he cautioned that an outright prohibition could not be guaranteed.

Pangman advised supervisors to wait for an actual proposal, require studies and disclosure, and decide after reviewing a project’s specific benefits and effects. “You can always say no,” he said.

Pangman said he believed the former mill property was already zoned industrial, but a data center would require at least a conditional use permit. The application would undergo review under the California Environmental Quality Act, beginning with an initial study. Pangman said a project of the type being discussed would likely require an environmental impact report, although a mitigated negative declaration is another possible outcome depending on the study.

The Sierra County Planning Commission would hold at least one noticed public hearing before acting on a conditional use permit, and its decision could be appealed to the Board of Supervisors. Pangman estimated an application of the assumed complexity would be unlikely to finish in less than a year or cost an applicant less than $100,000, and he said the expense could reach $200,000 or more.

Roen and Dryden supported more research but cautioned against signaling Sierra County is closed to business before officials know what might be proposed. Both emphasized the potential value of restarting the cogeneration plant, which could consume woody material from forest-thinning work and green waste now increasingly expensive to handle elsewhere.

Dryden said she shares residents’ concerns about noise, water, and quality of life, but she also recalled the jobs, population, businesses, and services Loyalton lost after its mill closed. A data center might provide few permanent jobs, she said, while an operating cogeneration plant could employ more people and support forest work. She also noted the mill property has private wells, rather than relying on Loyalton’s water system, although no proposed project exists to show whether the supply would be sufficient.

“We need more time,” Dryden said. The county does not know the size, water system, or sound level of any possible facility, she explained, and she wanted to preserve its ability to consider private investment while gathering enough information to judge whether a proposal would fit the community.

Supervisor Lee Adams said he shared concerns about water and noise and proposed a standing committee so the research would occur in meetings open to the public. “I prefer the community not have to worry about this,” Adams said. He added that residents would be watching any future proposal closely and the county would likely reject a project that did not “fit.”

Supervisor Terry LeBlanc questioned how a data center could be supplied when the area does not have enough water to serve a trailer park where additional housing could be developed. Supervisor Lila Heuer said she opposed data centers and supported studying a moratorium, but she also stressed that California’s environmental review and Sierra County’s public-hearing process would prevent a project from being quietly approved. “I don’t want it here,” Heuer said. “I don’t want it anywhere.”

Supervisors ended the discussion with the stated intent to place formal creation of a standing committee on a future agenda. The committee’s meetings would be duly noticed and open to the public.