Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

That has to still stay the same, so now I'm stuck on it. Yeah, she recorded the BCA call.

It's going to be those three. The camera just sat here with a dark room the whole night. There's like 14 hours long.

She had to filter out the 14 minutes of actual.

Call the plan Commission meeting for Wednesday the 16th to order We have a roll call please Meredith Jason Carnahan here Helen Dooley here Phil van why?

Sandy Harrison here very odor Frank Pauver.

Here.

Suzanne Davis. Here. Angie Holt. Here. Tyler Lanning. Alicia Rogers. Mike McCarowich. Here. Andrew Cruz.

Here.

Chris Gallmer. Here. And Meredith Wright here.

We'll now stand for the pledge. I'll have a moment if someone would like to lead us in a word of prayer.

Yeah, that's the bar heads. Father, we invite you into this commissioner's court this evening for the planning commission meeting. And Lord, guide our thoughts and our decisions that we make, Lord, so it might be in line with your glory and your wishes. And also for the residents of DeKalb County, Lord, in Jesus' name, amen.

In your packets, you should have the minutes from the previous meeting, August 19th. If there's no additions or corrections, would you entertain a motion to approve?

I'll make a motion to approve. I will second.

I have a motion and a second to approve the previous meeting minutes. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Both same minutes are approved Also in your packet was the claims for August same thing. There's no additions or corrections entertain a motion to approve Second a motion and a second to approve claims all those in favor say aye Oh same Claims are approved Chris. No old business Then we're on to new business a public presentation of the proposed data center ordinance.

So I had a big spiel written up, thinking there'd be a lot of people in the audience. But I'll still respectfully follow this. But I wanted you all to take a look at what is in your packet for the data center ordinance. First off, too, I wanted to thank members of the Planning Commission that were on this committee. We had Jason Carnahan, Angie Holt, Tyler Lanning, Alicia Rogers, our council liaison, Mr. Van Wye, and our commissioner who just came in the door, I believe, Mr. Miller, and then Attorney Andrew Cruz. We met quite a few times over the last few months to craft, review, and edit this ordinance. The Planning Commission and the county commissioners, as you all know, established the moratorium on data centers for six months. It was April 8th through October 8th, and for the Planning Commission to create an ordinance to allow for data centers, which involved Planning Commission members and members of the committees in doing our own research. We attended seminars, webinars, virtual meetings, and then if you remember, we even had our own Data Center 101 educational session in July to allow the Planning Commission and members of the public to ask questions, we gather feedback, and learn on what may or may not be feasible here in DeKalb County. So with data centers being a hot topic, if you will, I believe members of the Planning Commission and Angie, Jason, Tyler's not here, but Jim, Bill, speak up as well. We didn't want that to kind of hinder or put blinders on us as we crafted this ordinance. We wanted it to be one that we felt that Dekalb County Would be comfortable with one thing also that members of the committee We heard a lot about was the community benefit agreements, which are also sometimes called economic development agreements That many if not most of the communities along with zoning standards require site-specific standards that may not That maybe not all facilities would need to meet so allowing the committee Or sorry, so the committee has proposed draft language in the ordinance which establishes baseline requirements and then gives the commissioners room to negotiate project specific benefits and potential for higher standards through the community benefit agreement There's three parts in this proposed ordinance We have development standards performance standards and then required submittals the development standards would be those obviously prior to or or things they would have to meet that are site specific. Performance standards that they would meet after construction, such as noise, water consumption, electric, and that sort of thing. And then required submittals that would be part of the requirements during the development plan approval. We felt during our conversations as a committee that it was important to establish clear intentions with each of these. And then additionally, the committee created three tiers of data center facilities. The first tier, tier one, would include co-location enterprise and edge data centers that operate at an electrical demand of less than five megawatts. Tier two are data centers that operate at five to 100 megawatts. And Tier 3 would be the hyperscale data centers that occupy more than 100 acres of land and operate in an electrical demand exceeding 100 megawatts. So with that, I'm just going to kind of go through the ordinance page by page here. starting at the top there where these would be permitted. The tier ones would be permitted in our low intensity industrial and our high intensity industrial zoning districts, our I-2s and our I-3s, and tier twos and threes would be allowed in our high impact zoning district. Currently, Our zoning map doesn't have very many areas for I2, I3, or our HI districts. A lot of these are going to be centered around SDI or even the corridor up to Butler. There's some spot zoning out there that are site specific for potential uses, but really there's not any open land that would have these. So they would have to go through some sort of zone map amendment process. I shouldn't say have to, but odds are they would have to go through some sort of zone map amendment process unless the property is already zoned for their use. And then the development standards that follow. The committee felt it was important to establish a cap on any one facility of 1,000 acres. All three tiers would be subject to their respective underlying zoning district for the building setbacks, except for the emergency generators that need to be 1,000 feet from any existing residential home, as measured from the property line or the residential zoning district. So the 1,000 contiguous acres Even if it would be separated by a public roadway, railroad right-of-way, or drainage easement, it would still be considered contiguous. How did we get to that number of 1,000? We discussed a lot there, and Jason, Angie, feel free to speak up, and Jim in the back, if you want to come to the mic and say anything, please do. But we felt as though 500 may be too low. that there might be some data centers that may need additional acreage for the topography of land, the drainage infrastructure, and things like that. So 1,000 acres we felt still would allow for probably not an Amazon or one of those large data centers, but still could comply with the other sizes.

How big is the campus at New Haven? Do you have any idea?

1,800 acres, I believe, is what we talked about that quite a lot, but about 1,800 acres.

So we're at 1,000 acres. That's a pretty big campus.

I'd be more apt to go to the 500, to be honest, because with the technology shrinking down, the computer is getting smaller. They're going to take up less space. They're going to be needing. During my research in the data centers, the one over in the Hammond area had a big facility, but only using a quarter of it because that's as much power as they can put into that area because it comes down to the power of how much computer space is. So I don't want to have all these big centers and get shrunk down to these little things and taking up all this extra farmland. I think 500 acres or less could be plenty of what they would need for the data centers and stuff like that. So that's just my opinion, and I wouldn't want to move that from 1,000 to 500 continuous. I would certainly agree with that.

We had talked about, I think, 800 was one number we had thrown out there, and we also wanted to allow for enough setbacks so that all of those noise and vibration-generating things would be distant from the property line. I think it was part of it. We'd done some math on that.

Yeah. Well, we looked at... We threw a lot of numbers out too about landscape buffers and things like that that you'll see throughout this that we rely on the underlying zoning district for setbacks, landscape buffers and things like that where if it's zoned appropriately, setbacks and landscape buffers can be what the underlying zoning district allows. But if there's an area that the commissioners feel as though should be protected more, meaning there's a residential area or there's a nature preserve or something like that, the commissioners can put additional standards in place. So that could theoretically increase the acreage demand for data centers if there's an area site-specific for that. Now, they could go before the Board of Zoning Appeals and say, through this community benefit agreement, we now have to have an additional thousand feet between us and X, whatever that would be, which is gonna increase our acreage to 800 acres. So they could go to the BZA and request that if the commissioners would be okay with that.

To your point, Kelly, we did find the same thing that you're saying is that it is getting smaller footprint. They're not going to artificially inflate the size of the building. They're going to shrink it and it's going to become more compact. We did find that as well. I agree with that.

Another question I have is we can take a continuous acreage. What happens if two companies want to have back-to-back and they want to use each other's for stuff like having power going between them or So that'd be considered a co-location.

And that's? Which would be a different.

Somewhere else in here, okay. I just wanted to just have that.

Well, in our definition.

Today we're just going over this information.

A tier one's a co-location. So they would have to fall with under that. That tier. I-1 or I-2 or I-3 zoning district. And they would have to be designed to be co-located.

Okay. So you guys have thought about that process. Correct.

So it wouldn't be two companies saying we need 500 acres each now and we're at 1,000.

But that's the smaller... Megawatt. There are five megawatts, too. So it depends on what you're... If you're thinking about two large campuses... I just want to make sure we... I don't know if we addressed that. The co-location was on a smaller scale.

Yeah, I just want to make sure we cover all of our bases as we do this. Because the moment this goes out and it's approved, we're going to have people come knocking on our doors. And we don't want to have loopholes that we somehow missed. And all of a sudden, we got four Googles back to back to back. And we're like, OK, now we're kind of stuck in this situation. So I don't know if you guys had that conversation or thought about that yet. But it seems like you guys have put some thought into it.

I mean, I guess the only thing that is in here is about, I hate jumping back and forth because it would frustrate me, but expansion and or modification. So if a data center is approved and then if they want to have an expansion or modification. So if Google came and said, here, we want this 500 acres, and then in five years they came back and said, we want this modification, the Planning Commission could say no.

Or through the rezone. As we go through this and anybody's listening can at least know that we've had that conversation. Yeah.

I mean, I'm going to make notes here. about the acreage things because, and we'll go through this as well through the meeting schedule, we are kind of tight on time to get things through at a planning commission level and then to a county commissioner's level. So I do want to go through this and have some discussions on acreages and anything else that comes up that we can, that the committee can then have a meeting on in a couple weeks and say, okay, here's what we're comfortable with and here's what we want to recommend. Okay. For the... Sorry, I got sidetracked. There we are.

We're number two.

Yeah, I got that. For all three tiers, they're subject to the underlying zoning district for the building setbacks, except for those emergency generators. They have to be 1,000 feet from any existing residential home. Or residential district is measured from the edge of the district building Heights are governed by the underlying zoning district for tier 1 & 2 which would be 60 feet and I2 is 80 feet or sorry tier 1 & 2 is 60 feet for the I2 zoning district and 80 feet for the I3 and Then we're proposing up to 15 feet above that height for any parapet functions or acoustic acoustical or visual screening For Tier 3, the maximum height allowed, which would be above what's allowed in the ordinance, would be 80 feet with up to 20 feet for any parapet functions. There's a few exceptions that would be allowed. Basically, it would be for any building codes that may be required, but it would be for architectural features, antennas, lightning protection, mechanical screening, utility structures that may exceed the maximum height. I don't think there would be any. Discussion for the heights, but if there is you speak up Design at the site should allow for the orientation of substations generators HVAC equipment or other noise generating equipment to be placed At the site that would face away from the non institutional. Sorry non industrial zoning district were physically practical Any rooftop screening should be done so that it cannot be seen from the ground and And then vibration isolation instruments should be used for all equipment that may generate vibrations. Again, like I said before, the committee did review the landscape buffer standards in the underlying zoning districts and felt that the standards in the UDO were sufficient for where these data centers may be cited. We felt that if a data center, for example, would be cited adjacent to SDI, a landscape buffer probably doesn't make sense. But if a data center would be sited adjacent to a residence, we want to allow the commissioners to require additional screening through the community benefit agreement. And that would be sufficient. All fencing should not exceed 10 feet. We did look at that at other communities and data centers. 10 feet seemed to be pretty standard for these facilities. Material proposed should be approved by the plan commission. If they want to propose chain link fence or something more decorative, that's something that the Planning Commission could approve. Barbed wire would be allowed only if it's above 8 feet but couldn't exceed the 10 feet max. Expansions and modifications. Like I said before, to already approve facilities was a concern of the committee and what happens when a facility comes and then in three years wants to expand. we've proposed that any increase that doesn't result in additional building area, campus size, electrical demand, water consumption, emissions or traffic or other impacts could be approved by the zoning administrator when the modification remains in compliance with the approved plan. And that could mean that maybe it's a small modification to the road network or parking or accessory buildings or even interior renovations. Anything above and beyond that, Increasing the building sizes, the acreage, utility demand would require review and approval in accordance with the development review procedure of the UDO. We also want to require additional plans, studies, and other information to be evaluated for its impact. So those are kind of all of the development standards that the committee felt was sufficient enough The performance standards are those that would be... Back to the buildings real quick. Sir, go ahead.

I didn't want to interrupt you too much here. No, you're fine. With the vibration isolation, that's another big topic that a lot of people have issues with. There are companies and engineering firms out there that can design buildings to be less vibration and less noise. How do we incorporate that? Their design is to be approved by a vibration specialist. that we can bring in and have their designs approved? Can we put that in there somewhere to say, like, hey, you can, because you can design buildings now to be very less noisy, vibration proof, once it's in the design. So I think that. Where would we put that at? Would that be in the performance standards? Would that be in the building standards? That it has to be approved by a third party vibrations engineering special.

Yeah, so I think that the last lines of those vibration isolation, such that vibration is not Perceptible at or beyond the property line, but then also under the required submittals on page five We require that all plans materials and reports be reviewed by a third party engineering and or consulting firm chosen by the Planning Commission and or County Commissioners and paid for by the developer so that would be something that the developer would have to pay For a consulting firm or firms.

And I saw that section. I just wanted to put it clear for anybody that any data center person that's coming in here knows that they're going to probably have to get approved by an anti-vibration engineering firm. I didn't know how we wanted to word that so that way they know. Because if we look at all materials, plans, reports, they know it's like, well, it's just presented plan. That's what it is. I want them to know ahead of time.

Well, there's a baseline sound study and a baseline vibration study required on page six. Right. There's those.

That might apply. Yeah, I just want to make sure it's very clear to anybody that's reading through this.

Because we also have a qualified engineer with vibration specific experience.

That might be what I was looking at too. So I didn't know how we, because it kind of gets a little confusing when I was reading through this about exactly how that was going to play out. So there's something for the. or the committee to kind of make it a little clearer, make it a little more understandable, because this will go out to the public. They will look at this and need to understand that as a representative on this board and as a commissioner, I'm going to be making sure that any plans that come through will be looked at anti-vibration and noise-wise, because there's a lot of easy ways to design that stuff out.

Yeah, and one thing, again, that we heard a lot of, especially in the early stages of development or data centers when they were, we're in the early stages of coming, is that a lot of things can be added at that community benefit agreement stage that the commissioners can say, we want X, Y, and Z that we might not be thinking of right now anyway. This is something obviously that we can think of, but there might be additional things that we just aren't thinking of right now. So I do think that, and Angie and Jason, Jim, feel free to speak up too, is that,

I understand that the commissioners would have that choice to make those decisions, but there's a baseline we want to set, and the baseline is a set. We want to make sure we're not having a bunch of noise and vibrations going in the community. I don't care what the project is. And I might not be here in four years. The current commissioners might not be here in four or six years. The next ones might get slipped in there without. I'd like to have it in there so any data centers or any other big module computer that come forward in the next 20 years knows we need to have these baselines set. So we do have...

Pre-application baseline sound study. And this is on page six, eight, and nine. Pre-application baseline sound study and a pre-application baseline vibration study. and then a noise and vibration plan per whatever those standards are above.

If you're wanting... I'm fine with the wording, but my concern is it's all spread out along this. It doesn't make it very clear to anybody that's reading this that we're going to require that. You know what I mean?

You see vibration sounds...

I know. I know.

I'm just saying, like, we have to go back and forth beyond our current development standards now. It's, I mean...

I just wanted to make it a little clearer so that way anybody that's reading this in the public that doesn't understand how to read through seven pages and understand, because you just see vibration studies. Okay, what does that mean? You know what I mean? I just would like to make it a little more clearer, that's all. I think what you guys have done is a great job here, but it's kind of spread out. Because another question I have, which we haven't got to, is the next part. It says the daytime, the 50 dBMs and 60 nighttime, who's going to be checking that? You know we have a lot of sound stuff, but it's all kind of throughout the whole thing and Water and sound are the two biggest issues that you're gonna get when it comes to these data centers coming in And I want to make sure it's very clear to the public when they read this that we're very much taking care of that so And not in your not in your zoning I Guess I guess then I'm gonna rely on the Planning Commission to read this and

and wordsmith it to make sure that it's able to be understood and categorized in a way that they want it, right? Like I think that that's what has to happen.

Like I said, this is just having a conversation. So as we work through this, this is just some things that I've noticed and try to head off some of the issues that are going to come at us for this, you know what I mean? We're going to get a lot of questions. You know what I mean? And when this gets out to the public, which is going to go out to the public, which it should go out to the public, let me clarify that, making it having a little bit easier to read would probably be really beneficial to us on that aspect. And this is all conversation we're having right now, so it's not like we're making motions or anything. But you guys wanted feedback to the committee. One of the feedbacks I'm giving you is, yeah, you have sound here, you have sound here, and all these different parts, but it might be just easier to just somewhere, but it will have to be approved by, you know what I mean, making it just a little bit clearer. But I'll stop. I'll let you continue, Chris. I apologize.

No, you're good. I think that part of it, though, is that there's development standards, there's performance standards. The development standards come prior to performance standards. The performance standards are while you're in building, is what I'm looking for, while you're in production, if you will. And then there's going to be the required submittals that we want to make sure we see. So I hear what you're saying.

What if you just put a cross-reference in on page 2 under 4C, vibration isolation, and at the end say, see also number 9.

Because if those cross-references change, we have to make sure we're reviewing and making sure those cross-references are still impactful.

Public meeting is an open .

Just real quick, I hear what Kellyn's saying, I hear what Chris is saying, and I understand exactly what Kellyn's talking about because it is, if someone from the public walking in when I first started reading this, it's impossible. If you haven't been reading it for a long time, but what you're saying, It needs to be organized this way inside the ordinance makes perfect sense. So maybe when you guys release it to the public, when this is all done, you just have not even a cross reference because that becomes even more confusing.

Yeah. Bullet point summary.

Just a summary here. Here's everything we're doing for water. Here's everything we're doing for electricity. Here's everything we're doing for sound just to make sure. So someone doesn't have to bounce back and forth between pages. Here's exactly what we've done. In explaining it as Helen seeing it with those two or three issues and leave the ordinance organized out It needs to be That's a good idea.

I like to say that too often with him, but it's a good idea Another document one thing you touched on was enforcement and we really did consider this thing much longer so we've simplified it because if we want to have data centers come to DeKalb County with restrictions we don't want to make it so difficult to manage and follow and then enforce, which some things we just wouldn't be able to enforce. We've sort of pared it down to what we think is the basic essentials and then leave it to the commissioners on a site dependent based on that economic agreement. I 100% agree with you.

The enforcement's going to be really hard.

A little background with it, yeah.

Yeah, the enforcement's going to be difficult. That's why we can design it ahead of time and have it built the right way. We won't have to worry about enforcement as much.

And if a third party is evaluating that, in theory, as long as they build it the way they plan to, it should meet those standards.

Because enforcement has always been the question with anything we do here. Anything, yeah. Yeah. Did you get lost yet, Chris, or do you back up?

No, but I'm good. I marked on my notes. No question? So for the noise there, piggybacking what he just said, The noise and the emergency generators are probably the things that we have on there that could be enforced through planning and zoning. The other stuff is just things that we're going to have to rely on the commissioners to have an enforcement capability and the community benefit agreements. But for that, there's... And we have on our definitions there... I thought we did it. Angie can maybe explain the DBA and DBC. She's semi-expert in that. But anyway, we wanted to say that it wouldn't create noise in excess of the following sound levels in the daytime and the nighttime. Obviously, a slight decrease in the DBA versus the nighttime in the DBA, and the same with the DBCs.

Because DBA is what decibels and DBC is more bass sounding or something? More of a vibration.

We really wanted to address those items that we know other communities are concerned. Concerns have been expressed and issues have been communicated with noise and vibration because vibration, depending on the soil, travels further than the noise. And so that's where we added the DBC. Again, we're not experts at it. But I used AI to help me. So we set standards based on what other communities are using. And so we wanted to address both of those issues because some standards only address the one where people do sense that vibration. And so we wanted to try to address that up front.

And there's been no, at least from the professor from Purdue that we've heard speak in multiple seminars and webinars, there's been no studies for the vibration that people are saying they feel about what that health impact is, if there is a health impact. But as Angie said, we did want to put that in the ordinances as to something.

And if they violated, it would be dealt with maybe the same as any other violation of our UDO? Correct. It would have to be Doesn't have to have separate necessarily separate fines here because we talked about any violation of the ud right these steps, right?

True, but this is also way bigger pockets than a normal business would have you know me some of the communities that we've Into was one of the people I kind of reached out to and talked to and watched the video was the They have a Google data center in their area. They have pretty strict resistance to some of the things. And that data center is just like, we don't care. We'll pay the fees and fines. And they're just doing what they want, and they're still paying for it. And so we have some sort of, I mean, we're talking about billions of dollars here. So like a $5,000 fine is going to mean nothing to them. You know what I mean? So there's going to be a need to have a conversation. Now, we can do that with the agreement, and that's fine. But I just, that's another concern that's been brought up during the Congress, my research I've been doing on this, is to make sure that they're hard enough to actually hurt them because this is Facebook, Google, AWS. These are billions and billions of dollars. A $5,000 fine is going to be nothing to them. They'll just keep doing what they want and paying for it.

We actually have a list for you commissioners that we've started that has things that we believe should be addressed at the community benefit agreements. Okay. Do think that that could be something above and beyond that's outside of the UDO that is in a separate Community benefit agreement or I would agree with that I just wanted to since he talked about I just want to kind of point out that that that would be something that will be Definitely looked at and talked about I think there's a limit on fines.

I know for There is four people of like 7,500 that's for the judgments. I Attorney fees right right. I mean we've come up against that in certain enforcement actions So I mean I don't know that you could put a hundred thousand dollar fine in for example I'll ask my lawyer. There you go. Yes. Yeah, I think that'd be something to look into look into yeah I'm just saying that's a potential concern One thing about the engines the backup engines is

motors, whatever you want to call them, EPA demands that the decibel be stickered right on those engines, whether it's a tractor, a semi. The standard ones we have out here, they all have that dB that says on that motor right now. That's an EPA standard that has to be on there so that any of us who go to that site and look and say, OK, well, that gas-powered motor has a DB of 60. So that part I don't think is going to be too hard to do, because whether that motor runs during the day or during the night, it's going to be the same. It's not going to be less at night than during the day. But that sticker's right on there. You can come out and check our tractors and anything, and it's on there. It's required. And other than the muffler, that would be the only way that number would ever change, is if the muffler disintegrated to the point where you had no muffler.

Yeah, and these are also measured at the property line. So let's say they would have, it could be less if they use less machines, right? five air conditioning units ran at my house during the day but only have one at night, the sound level is going to be less at your property line from five to one, right? So I think that's probably, that's what we're, that's our intentions here is that it's just lessened at the night if there is, if there even is a noise level disturbance.

You're saying those measurements are based at a property line?

Correct.

Not at the actual generator.

Correct. The property line. We have 1,000 foot back as of right now, so that's a good amount of space.

And hopefully, to your point, instead of enforcement, hopefully we have the right things in place or can add things if needed to build it into the design as much as possible so that it's with a

Worry about the fees and fines That's where some of the other communities I've done some research messed up on they did they you're trying to fix it after the fact and what we need to Learn from the mistakes and build it make and build it make them build it the correct way for us at their cost Emergency generators

For the generator, for the emergency generators, permitting them only as accessory equipment, and our testing is limited to up to 50 hours per year, and only Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., and not being able to be tested on Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays. Obviously, if the emergency generators need to be used for an emergency, the standard is not applicable but this would only be for emergency generators when they can be when they're being tested.

Yeah we had heard that or found out that in some communities that they'd use it to offload at their peak demand and within the certain hours so we're trying to narrow it down to what that's truly required is they have to do testing is required so use it for that and only that and in emergency situations so we tried to to tighten that up as much as we could.

I love that. The only question I have on there, I know it's shocking to have a question, is are we allowing diesel or are we going to push for just natural gas generators only? Because natural gas burns cleaner than they do the diesel. Air quality is another concern that people have when it comes to these. And if we just force them to have to use natural gas and newer models of natural gas,

Will help with their their issue that some people have had I don't know if you guys had that discussion at all Well There was discussion about does the Planning Commission want to Require a certain fuel use or should that be something that commissioners allow or require at the Community benefit agreement I mean I don't know if there's a stance one way or the other with the committee on diesel or natural gas or...

I mean, how many generators are they going to use at some of these sites? I mean, if we have 1,000 acres, if that goes through, these sites can be pretty big. There's going to be a lot of generators out there for air quality that I would almost say, no matter who it is, it needs to be natural gas and set it up to be natural gas for them. We have a big natural gas pipeline that goes through, so there's enough natural gas in the county to do it. We're not really restricting them on it. Diesel doesn't burn. When I did the research on the diesel versus natural... Initial cost up front for naturals. What is it? What's the makes it more expensive, but it burns cleaner? It's actually a better long-term diesel is just cheaper to set up But you still got to pull these diesel generator the storage tanks for them and all that stuff They're just hooked up to a natural gas line. It makes it just a better environmentally for these places Just my opinion are the natural gas resources available.

I

There's pipelines. We've got two pipelines that go through, big ones.

I'm just curious if that was practical.

Yeah, it would be practical for digout. Not everywhere, but practical for digout.

Yeah, I'd agree with the natural gas. I'd like to go back up before we started with emergency generators. Number one, an E may be exempt if baseline study is shown to be in excess of requirements. I'm not sure I understand what that's saying.

Like if they're locating next to SDI that's already louder than that? We're not going to make them be quieter by regulation if they're already in a neighborhood where it's already louder. If that makes sense.

Yeah.

If they're next to something loud.

I just couldn't read that in here. Right.

I can't quite read it.

Okay.

Great explanation.

That makes sense, yes.

That's what I said on the committee. Yeah, but they would still, at the property line, would not be able to have an increase in their noise levels, right? So, like, if at that property line it's already at, let's say, 75 DBA they can't be at 76 or 77 they would be it so they could have to be at 75 or less.

Okay?

Okay, thank you If we were gonna just required it be natural gas We're restricting the areas If that's what this committee decides that they want to restrict that There's a side note EPA now has all diesel engines that are Manufactured must be the Tier 4 standards, which is very extreme. There's very little pollutants coming out of these diesel engines now compared to the older ones. There just is, because they all have to be Tier 4 compliant and have the DEF fluid. Don't personally I wouldn't want to restrict to just if they decide they want diesel engines meet the standards That EPA sets that's fine.

Yeah, it has to be up to that tier four Well, we're saying that fuel storage tank shall comply with any applicable federal state or local regulations of the EPA I'm assuming would be the right federal regulation that would regulate the diesel engines I'm sorry EPA is the federal government that would regulate the diesel engine any yeah so so we need to put in there something that the generators themselves but the fuel storage is going to be the fuel they're going to use right the diesel yeah yeah

The other thing is to the well, what is the level of difference between diesel and natural gas?

Well right now it's very very significant Yeah, I suspect if you don't have natural gas you're gonna have to get it there Right now I mean diesel is over six dollars a gallon That's But again if they don't need the sides I wouldn't want to have that restriction. Yeah, I

That's just my personal opinion Well, I think we decided that for a maximum of 50 hours and emergencies it wasn't Some wasn't something worth putting a lot of weight on making them go one way or another Because I think it's kind of why we lean towards it can be whatever They kind of goes back to what happens if they go over that max and we're doing the fees and fines on them You know what I mean?

So if we just haven't designed it ahead of time the right way to know that we're gonna still be covered is kind of my concern Because the enforcement of this is going to be very hard to do. So they're like, yeah, we can throw some old degenerators in there. We'll say we'll do it under 50. And then they start running all the time. And my lawyer said we can only charge them $7,500. What do you think they're going to do? They're not going to care one bit. They'll just keep chucking out $7,500.

Well, if they're not being enforced, or sorry, if they're not following the EPA regulations,

then we're going to depend on other entities to come in and do it. We do that now. I know we do, and it's a big pain in the butt. If we just design it ahead of time to be what we want it to be, that's my only concern about it. If the diesel can go clean, great. Mr. Van Wye over here brought up propane, too. That's another option, too. I just want to make sure that we have the ability with this ordinance, with the way the data centers are right now, and they're willing to do pretty much anything we ask. to come in because that's how desperate they are. And they're willing to pay us big dollars for it that we need to put it to where they build it to the standard that we want it to be and not worry about trying to enforce it later. So if we can say the new tier four generators, like not worry about depending on an outside entity to come in. We've had problems with manure. We've talked about this manure thing before. We had to depend on the state to come in and deal with it. You know what I mean? And that's been a big problem. If we can just design it properly to the way we want it to do to protect our air or water, in our ears, say with noise and vibrations, then we should just have it already built that way the best we can. Because yes, if everybody follows the ordinance properly and we have a good partner in the aspect, they're going to follow these rules. But we're designing this for the person that's not going to follow the rules. And there's a lot of communities out there that have had bad data center partners. That's just what I was thinking. I mean, it's up to them.

Defer to the committee to say what they want.

This is just a conversation.

I'm making notes here, and we'll discuss it.

You can say what you want to. They have to have reliable generators. He was talking about they're going to put older ones in.

They're not going to.

But the thing is, your natural gas, your LP, are more efficient and less maintenance than what your diesel engine type of generator is going to be.

But, Chris, there's a place in Kentucky that they bought a bunch of old diesel generators and put them in there.

I said that?

No, I'm telling you. You said they're not going to buy those old generators. There's places in Kentucky that this is the ladies fighting. The city council is fighting them because they bought these old ones in. They're not following their deal, and they're the ones paying the fines and fees. They're just paying them, and there's nothing they can do to stop them.

If you just put in Tier 4, they don't care. They have enough money. They literally don't care. Just put the restrictions you want in. As far as the concern on them running those generators all day regardless of being fined, Can you, and this is a question for Mr. Cruz, can you, instead of putting in fines, can you say you need to cease operations if you go against these? Some way to do that quick, because that will hurt them so much more than ever fining them, up to what we can.

I think that needs to be done because of, it would need to be done in the CBA, the community benefit agreements, versus... In the UDO, because the UDO is a cumbersome way to get something enforced.

And what body of government is going in and reading hour meters and logging hours that they're running on their generators? I think the president of the planning commission should do that. He's sick. The current one only. Yeah. Suddenly sick.

Yeah, come on, man. did you guys have something in there about them displaying how much water they're using so make them display the uh... sounded the property lines once again it literally is no money to them uh... have them do all of these things how often your generators running generators have an entire layout entire web page when you run them the runoff computers you can see every minute that it was used how much gas it used everything these are the systems are putting in because They don't care about the money. Just have them display that to the public. Oh, the public can see, here is this. Or at least the commissioners get a report every month that says, here's how long we ran everything. Just require all that stuff up front. We want full data on how long you ran your generators.

Later on, we're going to get to that stuff when we require that.

I did talk about that. I know. It was the public.

Which we can go through that if you want to do annual reporting or monthly reporting. That's all... Don't skip ahead, Chris.

Don't skip ahead. We're still on page three.

Stay on page three. Gotcha. So water cooling and supply. So the notes I have for that is that for the committee to look at natural gas as fuel or tier four diesel fuel, right? That was kind of what came out of that.

Natural gas or LP gas or tier four engines.

For water supply and cooling, a report submitted that has the average daily, peak daily, annual projected consumption, proposed technology, any water conservation measures. They have to demonstrate that there's a sufficient water supply available and alternative cooling technologies that could reduce the potable water consumption should be encouraged where practical. we could require additional hydrogeologic information if groundwater is proposed as the primary source and that the county commissioners could require additional standards in the community benefit agreement. Can I talk? Any questions? Yep, I'm stopping so if there's any questions or concerns we can go through each of these at their own.

My belief is that they should not be allowed to have wells on these sites. They need to attach to a water municipal source and to a sewer district. They have these forever chemicals they put in for coolants, and I do not want them to be getting into my groundwater. If you do not allow wells or septic systems on site, there's no way of doing it without completely illegally doing it, which we would know about. So they can attach to a water municipal source, to for the sewer and water and if they need to they can update upgrade the Septic system or the sewer plants to be able to handle these Forever chemicals that are they're using If there's no wells or septic on-site there should be no way they could contaminate our groundwater in any sort of way and Then we also know how much water they're actually using because it's going to go to a public municipal Which we can see exactly how much water is going through it and going to it. I Now I know that water usage is going down. There's a lot of technology now they're using air. So I don't think that's going to be a big deal for them. They're going to be like, that's fine. Let's go ahead and do it. But I still don't want to, like again, it's all back to instead of enforcement, we go into designing it properly to protect us. So my opinion would be no wells on site, no septic system on site for these data centers. Even if it's for bathrooms or anything, they can attach to a water municipal source and they can pay for the sewer and water lines to go. But that's my opinion.

I had seen something along the same lines about the newer technologies using almost no net water anymore. That's what a lot of people are freaked out about, all the water usage. And it's almost like once they get filled up and established, then it's just barely using any water.

Any new water.

Any new water. Any new water, yeah. You have the coolants that are going into it, and that's where I'm concerned with if it's attached to a water municipal source.

We know what's being treated and not being dumped into and then find out later what there's a problems and if they're getting sighted where we would like them to get sighted there's already city water and If it's an industrial corridor area, there's out that I don't know I agree with that You know, I don't Don't like it, but I don't wouldn't mind They have their own wells as long as they have their own storage like cities do I don't want to tax a city where they have to put up a another storage tank because they don't have enough water.

The data center will pay for it. The data center will have to upgrade the water municipal source to... Yeah, I understand that, but... It'll be at no cost to the taxpayer. They're going to have to pay... The data center will have to pay for everything that they want to come in. These are multi-billion dollar companies. If they want to come in, they can pay to upgrade it, which then will benefit Father Garrett, St. Joe, or Garrett, wherever they go. It's going to update our sewer and water treatment plans, so that way if this does collapse, like some people said, we have a better water facility systems ready to go for the future for everybody. I would not worry about, I would make them pay it. They are paying, Jasper County is getting $47 million a year in a payment to them for 10 years. That's almost half a billion dollars. I need a couple extra million to upgrade their water and sewer plants and put these things in is going to be chump change to them. I mean, they almost got a trillion dollars worth of investment for these things. So that's just my stance on it is, again, it goes down to design it so that way no one can mess up our water table. We design it so they don't have access to wells or anything. There's no way any of these coolants can get into the ground. The coolants are going to be there. There's some communities that have some problems with this. We just cut that whole problem out by just sending them to Butler, St. Joe, Spencerville, Garrett, Auburn, Hamilton. And then those plants will naturally get upgraded if need be, which will benefit the people in that area by having a better updated sewer water plant at somebody else's cost.

Those cooling systems are a dedicated lock system.

True, but they still have to rotate them out once in a while. And after it condenses down, because the heat will evaporate them up, it condenses the coolants down into a very fine sludge and stuff that has to be taken out. And in some communities, if you do your research, it's getting dumped into a well. Again, it's to design it so that way no one can mess this up. You know what I mean? Design it ahead of time so that way we don't have to worry about enforcement. We don't have to come after it later. Make them be a good partner. Just design it to be a good partner.

Again, I have food for thought. I've got no problems with adding something and we can figure that out and discuss it.

But then somebody would have to figure out if whatever town they're getting their water from, if their treatment facility is up to grade or then they pay to upgrade it ahead of time. That sounds good.

No, they have to They have to condition that water before it even leaves their property. It's not up to a neighboring plant to do that. It has to be conditioned when it leaves the property.

SDI does that now, but that way they don't have the ability to put it into the ground with no wells or septics. They just don't have the ability to be a bad partner, basically. Because there's really good data centers out there, good partners that are out there, but there's been some really crappy ones, if you do your history and look into it, that's really screwed over some communities. I'm just wanting to design it so that way they don't have the opportunity, no matter who it is coming in, to be able to screw with our water, our air, and our ears. Stuff like that. If we just design it that way, so then I don't have to go to Chris and go, hey, how do we enforce this? And Chris goes, I don't know, talk to Andrew. And then we just do this little circle thing. No, I'd say look at your CBA. Yes. But it's always easier to design it ahead of time versus trying to enforce it later. Especially when they're so desperate right now to come in that they would do it. And if they don't want to follow our rules, then they don't come in. I mean, that's at the same point. We're not desperate to have one of these come in. Our community is doing fine. We have good development. We've got a good community. We're not one of the communities that are desperate for money to come in. But if they want to come in and we want to take that money and use it for betterment, then they're going to follow the rules to make sure it doesn't damage our community at the same time. I'll get off my soapbox. The next section, Chris, I have no questions over, just to let you know.

Are there communities that have done that successfully?

Other communities, yes.

Is that practical?

Yeah, they have. So it's not anything that we're asking that's out of whack. The problem is in the last six months to a year, everybody's trying to do what we're doing here. But the ones previous to that have been the ones that were so desperate. They're like, we'll give you, come in, come in, come in. We'll do what you want to bring them in. And now they're realizing they've been taken advantage of.

But there's some that have not been taken advantage of.

Because they put these things in and they follow those rules.

Well, even the ones that didn't have ordinances in place that use the CBA as their mechanism to make sure that you're going to be hooking up to municipal whatever. So there are ones out there that didn't use zoning to do that. But yeah. Any other questions about the water supply stuff? I've got my notes written there. For electrical service, basically, we just want to make sure that they have written verification from whatever utility they're using, that they have the ability to serve the proposed development. Obviously, they're not going to build this and not have electricity, right? So we just want to make sure we understand what their peak demand is, what their electrical service voltage is, any locations of substations, which we would need to know anyway, transmission improvements. that may be required approval by the county would not wouldn't obligate any utility provider to construct the infrastructure obviously they're going to need to do it on their own and then again the commissioners could require additional standards in the community benefit agreement any questions about that or comments suggestions from my members or the public why couldn't we

Suggest that they provide their own Generators or Reactors or whatever to create their own electricity and then they could actually And they wouldn't be pulling off of our grid or pulling off the local grid There is companies that do that Yeah, I don't I I don't know we didn't really discuss that as a as a committee level I don't

I wasn't planning on talking in this section, but that's going to create a whole slew of problems because what kind of power generation are they going to do? Are they going to bring a small nuclear in? Then you have that conversation about small nuclear. Those are 15, 30 years out. They're pretty safe.

They've got them

I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying we have no ordinance about that just yet or have a conversation about that. This is more the data centers. So I don't see, I would not be for to make them have to have their own power generations on site too. I wouldn't want to do that.

I think when the technology gets there, they probably will naturally go that direction.

It's going to be cheaper for them.

Yeah, I would think so. But I don't know, yeah, I don't know if the technology exists that, I don't know if that's practical at this time.

And then we'd have to have a bigger acreage to offset that so you have a bigger facility now versus what we're trying to work on here because now you're going to add a power generation onto it too. So I think adding both together is just kind of a bad idea.

We could be encouraged. We have areas in here where we make suggestions and encourage things because we don't know what the future holds and what's going to be available and when. So we could always add something like that.

I'm still making notes. Sorry? No, who knows? No, I have to do my own notes. I've got to make my own. And thank God for Meredith. She does our minutes. But for our committee, I want to make sure I have these notes. For the traffic impact study, it must be prepared by a professional engineer, showing the existing roadway conditions, construction traffic, employee traffic, Oversized equipment deliveries things that just would be in a typical traffic study And then Again during the community benefit agreement the county would require or may require roadway improvements necessary to safely accommodate the proposed development Any questions there comments there is there any is there any data?

Number of people based on the size of Of the data center. So. Employees or? Yes, employees.

Construction or permanent employees? Permanent.

Permanent employees.

Not many.

Not many. Yeah. I mean, no, I think there could be like 50 to 100. Andrew, do you know? There's not that many. See, I was thinking like 30 on the back.

Yeah. Or the number 29. Disgusting.

Total employees, yeah. Permanent employees, yeah.

Yeah, if you like construction is obviously quite a bit.

Yeah construction will be more of us.

It would be Different based on size.

That's true, too Well, we didn't any state that there was 120 that's gonna be 125 employees down in New Haven They're also an 1800 square foot facility So if we're gonna keep it a thousand we're go to 500 which I would prefer I'm just maybe a lot less than that Yeah, making a statement.

That's what that'd be the most probably about 120. That's got to be a giant one that

So a quick Google search. A small facility employs, this is 1 to 5 megawatts, employs about 8 to 30 permanent workers. Medium or 5 to 20 megawatts is 15 to 35. Large or hyperscale, which is 100 megawatts plus, is 20 to 50 employees for a 100 megawatt site. Multi-tenant can require 4 to 8 jobs per megawatt. So it depends on just the size. That's really not a factor. I'm sorry? That's not a factor. No. Like for roadway? No. No, no. There's more. I guess I don't know what SDI, what their largest shift employs. Does anyone know? Hundreds.

Yeah. Is it? Yeah.

That's a lot. So less than that.

I like that Auburn actually wrote. Well, what he said was that the biggest traffic is going to be construction Construction. Yeah, I one of my one of my brother-in-law's is working at the one in New Haven and The guy that brought him on said you can retire from here and he's six years from retirement So, you know, that's pretty incredible I Yeah. The biggest issue is pre-business.

Yeah, and that would all get reviewed prior to figuring out construction traffic locations and things like that. Make you guys do some work. For... Emergency response plans Again just making sure they have the emergency response plans in place It would need to be reviewed by the local emergency departments fire departments the county emergency management agency prior to commencement of operations, but Again, I think that would be pretty standard for what they are asked. And then to the required submittals, this would be anything additional that is outside of our typical development standards requirements. Again, one thing that we wanted to make, the community wanted to make sure was that obviously the plan commission and myself and my office staff, we're not experts in data centers as much as I probably would like to be. So we want these plans and reports to be reviewed by a third-party engineering or consulting firm chosen by the plan commission and the county commissioners and paid for by the developer to be able to review all these plans to make sure that they are in compliance with any local, state, or federal regulations. And they would act as a consultant for the DeKalb County government to take the project through the zoning and development plan process. So that way, those consultants are here at the meetings to answer questions from the public. They would act as though they were an arm of the DeKalb County Plan Commission or DeKalb County Commissioners or DeKalb County Development Services, not an arm of the developer themselves. So we would just want to make that clear. We would require a power and infrastructure and ratepayer protection plan. and if there's anyone that wants me to stop, just say so. Utility certification letter. Again, these are things that we've already kind of sort of talked about, but again, stop me if you want. Water and resource conservation plan showing compliance with B3 above. Again, I think that if the committee brings something back that says that that these have to use municipal water municipal sewer will add those changes to the correct spots but for water resource where their source of water comes from the daily and peak or average and peak daily demand the cooling system types water recycling and reuse measures a drought contingency plan and identification of any water withdrawals again if we if we change it to be part of municipal sewer, some of these things will be changed. Grid flexibility and curtailment plan, demonstrating the facility's flexibility to reduce the electrical load during grid stress events. Emissions and onsite generation plan. Emergency coordination plan in coordination with local police, sheriff, local fire and emergency agencies. construction Logistics plan which would be haul routes of heavy equipment emergency access routes Any required roadway improvements and letter of acknowledgement from the County Highway Department? Again, a lot of that stuff would probably be taken care of in the community benefit agreement or economic development agreement and The pre-application baseline study again. This is we've discussed this already, but the applicant would commission a baseline ambient sound survey conducted by a qualified acoustical engineer and at all sensitive receptor locations within 2,000 feet of the proposed site, write a submission. So they would have to have that baseline sound, baseline vibration. Same thing there. At any locations within 1,000 feet of the proposed site.

You may want to change that language on the sensitive receptor and the 1,000 feet. I don't know if that lines up with... I don't know if we want to say at the property line or... You may want to just... On the side. Okay. Just reconsider, make sure it lines up with where we ended up with everything else.

Okay. Probably same thing with baseline vibration study too. Yes. That's right, because we went back and forth about should we just have this based off of a church or school or residence versus, yeah.

And then that complicated things, yeah.

Thank you.

The landscape and buffer plan, per whatever standards above, noise and vibration plan, the type of energy and power grid, and power demand and grid protection. Tier A would be a firm self-supply. So that demonstrates electrical capacity sufficient to serve 100% of its maximum planned load would be approved under a tier A. A tier B would be grid dependent. So I guess there could be a self-supply Of their electrical though. They would just need to let us know how they're doing that And then the power demand response Also, they need to demonstrate their ability to reduce load Water protection demonstrated with plans submitted must show the closed loop or high efficiency cooling systems Use of non potable or reclaimed water is encouraged so that's kind of Playing Commission may impose water withdrawal limits and mitigation So early and Mess this up Devon Devon and getting whatever aquifer use So if they're proposing water from this which I think that plans are if we if we change the Proposed languages would wouldn't have any any effect there I Annual water quality reporting. We could change this to monthly or quarterly if that's something that we want as well. Emissions and on-site generation. The financial assurance or letter of credit. We would want them to have a letter of credit guaranteeing their utility infrastructure, their generation commitments, their water cycling resistance, water recycling systems, buffering, screening, and noise mitigation, and any other imposed conditions. That way we want this letter of credit to be that if they don't put in their landscape buffers, that that letter of credit would be sufficient to cover that. So it'd probably be a pretty large, substantial letter of credit to make sure they're doing these things, but we just wanted to make sure these were gonna be implemented.

Under A, you've got in there, planning commission may require Vocal letter of credit Yep Mayor will I think I think will yeah that may is I Think that should be mandatory I Don't know why we did may versus shall I actually don't I don't know I

How the letter of credit would be required to be given, obviously paid through DeKalb County, remain in effect until all allegations are certified complete and be drawable upon default. The county commissioners could negotiate into a community benefit agreement or economic development agreement. addressing project-specific infrastructure improvements, mitigation measures, community benefits, economic development commitments, or other matters within the authority of the county commissioners. And the plan commission shall not have the authority to enforce the EDA or the CBA unless explicitly addressing the agreement. So that's where, if you would require additional standards, you're shaking your head yes, so I know you understand that. But make sure that whatever you're requiring the plan commission to enforce or make sure is being done is in the Community Benefit or the Economic Development Agreement. And then really only adding one additional finding of fact to our development standards and basically just that the required plans or studies are with the applicable development standards in any Community Benefit or Economic Development Agreement. So basically if they're checking the boxes and meeting all the standards that are within the ordinance and within the EDA or the CBA, that they would have to be approved. Not going to go through all the definitions, but we will have some additional definitions there that would be pertinent to this proposed draft language But I certainly would like to say that the committee This is a tremendous

But I think we agree that it's a starting point, and everything has to be fine-tuned here and there. But what all of you have done and what you've put together here is very impressive. Okay. Thank you. We're not trying to beat you up.

No, it's appreciated. For me, it's just trying to figure out in my mind how do we take your comments and integrate them into an ordinance that makes sense.

We tried to make it vague and inviting enough, but leaving room for teeth where we wanted teeth.

Yeah.

Exactly.

baseline. Some baseline stuff. There's some things that we're going to And I think that if

If what comments were made at the meeting are kind of the baselines that we want to make sure are within here, I think we have our marching orders and notes to try to do that over the next few weeks.

Yeah, I think it's fairly straightforward. And we want to close any loopholes that anyone can identify, for sure.

Learn from others' lessons, for sure.

Question about how this gets fine-tuned Once it comes for the readings in front of the commissioners

If in the general public people make comments that make sense and should be included Can it then be amended before it gets to the final reading and a vote?

You have final say Susan.

So well, no, you're fine. So I Guess we can go through the the meeting schedule. So the plan is that the committee will take this back on September 30 31st 23rd and have a debrief and So at the planning commission meeting, that'll be a special meeting of the planning commission because by October 8th, the moratorium is over. Now granted, we could obviously extend the moratorium at the special meeting on October 7th, which maybe I'll do two public hearings for that. One will be for the moratorium and one will be for the data center. That way, if there's still things that we wanna fine tune, we can extend the moratorium at that time. But so there is time still within here tweak it right so like obviously from now i'll put this up on the county website as well although it's probably there already but i'll have it in a hopefully easier location to find for the public um can put it up for public so they can email us with comments um between october 7th and october 12th that would be the recommendations the plan commission's recommendations so if the plan commission says We want to change the dust. We bring this forward and we say we now want to allow goats to be the main energy productors, right, or whatever. I don't know. Something stupid. We make that amendment. We do it. Give it a recommendation of the county commissioners. The county commissioners will have their first reading on October 12th. they have the opportunity to send it back to the plan commission on October 12th with any comments or suggestions they have. Then it would come back to the plan commission at our October, probably have to be some sort of special meeting end of October sometime. It would then go back to the commissioners with our recommendation. Then it would go. So there's some wiggle room there, but the commissioners really only have one chance to send it back to the plan commission. That would be on the first reading. Okay.

Thank you.

If we change it on the second reading, which we have the right to do, does that go back to you guys?

It would have to go back to any changes. We have to go back to you guys. They don't have to go back to first reading again. Yeah, but if the plan commission says, hey, we don't like the commissioner's changes, they can vote on that. But then the commissioners can override. Correct. They can override. Found that out with solar. Right.

And the final say is with the commissioners. It's still with the commissioners. Yeah, it's still with the commissioners. Any changes have to go back to the plan commission. That's what I thought, yeah.

My comment is seeing that we have the committee, the plan commission, and all three commissioners in the same room, at the same time making comments, we're already miles ahead of last time. And everybody seems to be on the same page through the discussion. So I think that's a great thing. I know. Commissioner Yard's been pretty quiet. Yeah, I was going to say Yard's been a little quiet. But no, this is great. And everybody working together is awesome. And it'll eliminate a lot of the hurdles that we ran into with the last ordinance right. And I'm hoping we don't have to worry about the going back and forth thing. I'm hoping it should go smooth and like he said the moratorium is getting ready to expire So if we can just keep it if we can get to the finish line, that would be awesome because it's gonna be kind of weird extending a moratorium and Maybe said a little bit of a bad precedent My thought is just and maybe it would end up weeding itself out but you know with us maxing it at a thousand currently continuous acres this entire document is based on a

campus and like you just talked about solar at some point in there they had like a maximum of like 6,000 acres maybe power consumption or something like that all these other regulations would you know weed out all the others but do we need to have a maximum because you have like three different size facilities so I mean we could have like a whole bunch of little ones or one big one or Yes. Yeah, and I'm not even, I mean, I don't care either way. I just didn't know if that was something that needed to be put in there.

The biggest hurdle for them is going to be excess energy. Right. From what I understand, we only have like.