It may’ve required the storage capacity of a mid-size server farm to hold all the feedback that Alamance County’s commissioners took in this week before they imposed a year-long moratorium on new data centers in unincorporated parts of the county.
This single issue had been a standalone item on the agenda when the commissioners convened their latest semimonthly meeting on Monday. It nevertheless drew a capacity crowd to the Historic Court House – which had served as that evening’s venue in lieu of the county’s usual meeting chambers.
The commissioners ultimately heard data-center-related remarks from 42 people who approached them during either a designated public comment period which kicked off the meeting or the formal public hearing that had been scheduled about the proposed moratorium.
Many of those who appeared at the podium on Monday bore the imprint of a grassroots campaign that had sprung up around the issue of data center development. In fact, a large number of these individuals sported stickers demanding “no data centers” on their lapels, while a significant chunk were also in lockstep about the direction that they wanted the commissioners to take.
The consensus among these public speakers was that the county should implement a two-year moratorium on data center applications so that the county can develop an appropriate set of rules to regulate these facilities. Perhaps the best summary of this prevailing option came from Kelly Harer, an administrator at Elon University who happened to be the penultimate speaker during Monday night’s hearing.
“A two-year moratorium is not a ban, but simply a pause. It gives this board the time to answer important questions such as how much water would a facility use, where would the water come from, how much electricity will it use, who pays for the infrastructure, what noise standards apply, how far should these facilities be placed from homes, and how should we protect our farmland and the environment.”
– Kelly Harer
“A two-year moratorium is not a ban, but simply a pause,” Harer assured the commissioners during her time at the microphone. “It gives this board the time to answer important questions such as how much water would a facility use, where would the water come from, how much electricity will it use, who pays for the infrastructure, what noise standards apply, how far should these facilities be placed from homes, and how should we protect our farmland and the environment.”
A matter of politics
The questions that Harer posed to the commissioners were emblematic of the concerns raised by many of Monday night’s speakers.
Quite a few of these individuals boasted a liberal or progressive pedigree that may’ve ordinarily clashed with the values of the Republican-dominated board of commissioners. These speakers included several Democratic contenders for political office, including county commissioner candidates Ramona Allen, Sean Ewing, and Kourtney Royster. Also on hand with some remarks was Richard Ojeda, who is hoping to seize North Carolina’s Ninth Congressional District from its incumbent Republican representative Richard Hudson.
Other data center detractors found different ways to advertise their left-leaning politics to the board of commissioners.
Bill Shaw, a proponent of a two-year moratorium, came clad in a t-shirt which proudly proclaimed the United States has been a “No Kings” zone since 1776 – a reference to the contemporary movement against the current Republican President.
Christopher Latham, an Elon student who grew up in Alamance County, identified himself as an organizer for a sui-disant “Party for Socialism and Liberation” when he addressed the commissioners. There were moments, however, when Latham’s remarks seemed to reverberate with the strains of the old-time Southern politico.
“We are in Dixie – the most historically marginalized part of this country. We don’t need more carpet bagger developers coming down here to develop things that we don’t want.”
– Christopher Latham
“We are in Dixie – the most historically marginalized part of this country,” Latham reminded the commissioners. “We don’t need more carpet bagger developers coming down here to develop things that we don’t want.”
A handful of speakers couched their remarks about data centers in the language of anti-corporate populism.
Peter Childers, a resident in the southeastern part of the county, characterized these high-tech facilities as the cash cows of digital “oligarchs.”
“I would not want anyone to lose their quiet enjoyment of their property for this kind of industry which is designed to support AI and the profit of unaccountable billionaires.”
– Peter Childers
“I would not want anyone to lose their quiet enjoyment of their property for this kind of industry,” he added, “which is designed to support AI and the profit of unaccountable billionaires.”
“For me, it is about the ultra-wealthy corporate few exploiting the rest of us – using us as cash machines…There’s nothing democratic about this data center boom. No one called me and asked if I’m okay with wealthy corporations rolling out all this AI stuff.”
– hARRY pHILLIPS
“For me,” concurred Harry Phillips, “it is about the ultra-wealthy corporate few exploiting the rest of us – using us as cash machines…There’s nothing democratic about this data center boom. No one called me and asked if I’m okay with wealthy corporations rolling out all this AI stuff.”
Despite the overall left-leaning bent of these comments, it would be wrong to conclude that support for the moratorium was the exclusive preserve of the political left. In fact, one of the first people to call for this temporary pause on data center development was Leonard Harrison, a one-time Republican contender for the board of commissioners.
“AI data centers are great for this country. But if you don’t take the steps and make sure the county has the blocks in place to protect the people in those communities, we have a real problem.”
– Leonard Harrison
“AI data centers are great for this country,” Harrison acknowledged on Monday. “But if you don’t take the steps and make sure the county has the blocks in place to protect the people in those communities, we have a real problem.”
Expert testimony
The commissioners also heard a fair quantity of calls for a moratorium from people who boasted an inside track on computer technology or some another field that’s wrapped up in the data center debate.
Jeff Yusiewicz, a retired IT engineer, endorsed a “temporary moratorium” on data centers based on his understanding of the challenges that come from the behemoths which power Artificial Intelligence.
“I’ve been fortunate enough to work with many data centers over the years…and I understand data center operations,” he stressed. “However, I understand that AI data centers have some unique characteristics.”
Carl Temple, a retired Duke Energy employee, insisted that his own professional insights have clued him in to the impact that AI data centers have on the electrical grid. He went on to observe that Duke Energy’s operations are currently stretched so thin that it offers residential customers a discount if they allow the company to cut their air conditioning during peak hours.
“If the load has already peaked, that tells us we’re going to have to have a lot more generating powers. . . I’ll tell you windmills aren’t going to do it for AI, and sunshine won’t do it for AI. . . and my question is who’s going to pay for this?”
– Carl Temple
“If the load has already peaked,” he elaborated, “that tells us we’re going to have to have a lot more generating powers…I’ll tell you windmills aren’t going to do it for AI, and sunshine won’t do it for AI…and my question is who’s going to pay for this?”
Rick Thomas, a software engineer by trade admitted that some data center developers have found “sustainable ways” to meet their bottomless needs for electricity and water. Thomas nevertheless noted that, according to one two-year-old study, Big Data was still capable of guzzling some 17 billion gallons during the course of 2023.
“And despite the talk about more sustainable cooling,” he added, “the number is expected to quadruple by 2028.”
Meanwhile, Scott Snair, a “semi-retired” data analyst and defense contractor, argued that data centers have many of the same drawbacks as other forms of heavy industry. He nevertheless stressed that, unlike other sectors, the data industry brings precious few jobs to offset these deficits.
“That is a bad business decision,” he added. “That is sinfully bad.”
In the zone
The commissioners heard criticism that struck closer to home from Benjamin Andrews, who boasted a 14-year tenure as an employee in the data center industry. Andrews insisted one of the primary problems facing Alamance County is the relatively outdated land use regulations that exist in areas outside its cities and towns.
“Probably the most important point that has been brought up is that we don’t have zoning here, and that needs to be addressed. Part of that is that we need the proper requirements for data centers.”
– Benjamin Andrews
“Probably the most important point that has been brought up is that we don’t have zoning here,” he added, “and that needs to be addressed. Part of that is that we need the proper requirements for data centers.”
This approach to land regulation, which has traditionally been a nonstarter with the county’s rural residents, seemed to Carole Troxler like it may just restore the homefield advantage to people who live outside the county’s cities and towns.
“I live in the country. I am wide open vulnerable to anyone who wants to come in next to me and do what they want. . . and I have believed for years that we need serious zoning.”
– Carole Troxler
“I live in the country,” she acknowledged. “I am wide open vulnerable to anyone who wants to come in next to me and do what they want…and I have believed for years that we need serious zoning.”
The commissioners also heard a plug for countywide zoning from Henry Vines, a farmer from Snow Camp who has run for the county’s governing board as both a Democrat and, more recently, as a Republican.
Vines insisted that a moratorium on data centers would give the county time to decide precisely where data centers should set up shop, although he added that, for his money, the solution to this conundrum is plain for all to see. “I don’t think it needs to be no two years. It don’t take that long to get it done…The only way we can do this is through zoning, and we had a comprehensive plan that came up two years ago.”
On the nature of things
Other supporters of a moratorium offered more personal reasons for their reluctance to open the regulatory floodgates to data centers.
“[E]nvironmental preservation matters so deeply to me. . . A large data center can put enormous demands on our public resources. . . Economic development should improve the quality of life for the people who already live here, not put water, electricity, land, and communities at risk.”
– Benita Rayner
Benita Rayner, a member of the Occaneechi band of the Saponi nation, insisted that a two-year moratorium would protect the land and other natural resources that are sacred to her and other indigenous people.
“It is part of who we are,” she added. “That is why environmental preservation matters so deeply to me…A large data center can put enormous demands on our public resources…Economic development should improve the quality of life for the people who already live here, not put water, electricity, land, and communities at risk.”
“We need strong regulations in place to protect our residents – both animals and humans. If you don’t want it outside of your window, next to your house, think before you put it next to theirs.”
– Hillary Messer
Hillary Messer, a public school teacher, also shared her concerns about what might happen to the natural environment if data centers begin sprouting up in the rural landscape.
“We need strong regulations in place to protect our residents – both animals and humans,” she said. “If you don’t want it outside of your window, next to your house, think before you put it next to theirs.”
“Keeping our water clean and not incorporating a droning noise that would affect our land and wildlife would be greatly appreciated.”
– Molly Hubbard
Meanwhile, Molly Hubbard warned that an influx of data centers could ruin the wilds of Alamance County for herself as well as her special-needs child.
“Keeping our water clean and not incorporating a droning noise that would affect our land and wildlife would be greatly appreciated,” she added.
A double-edged tech
The potential surge of data centers also raised some troubling questions about the potential impact on other forms of growth and development.
“. . . I’m in support of a two-year moratorium – to really investigate the different claims that are being made. I think it would be foolish to nail our colors to the mast of the current model they have for data centers.”
– Andre Waschka
Andre Waschka, a professor at Elon University who resides in Burlington, argued that the local housing market may be undermined by a data center boom despite early research that purported to show no impact on home prices from data center development. Waschka observed that subsequent studies have pointed to factors that change the calculus completely.
“That’s why I’m in support of a two-year moratorium – to really investigate the different claims that are being made,” he went on to explain. I think it would be foolish to nail our colors to the mast of the current model they have for data centers.”
Dan Malone, a Saxapahaw resident who owns an electrical contracting firm, called for a moratorium in spite of the potential financial boon he might personally receive from a new data center.
“I do not want to see our local infrastructure stressed more than it already is. That especially includes our power grid and our local aquifer…The cost passed down to the taxpayer will be tremendous if that infrastructure is required to be upgraded at the scale that is required for this data center to be pushed through.”
– Dan Malone
“I do not want to see our local infrastructure stressed more than it already is,” he elaborated. “That especially includes our power grid and our local aquifer…The cost passed down to the taxpayer will be tremendous if that infrastructure is required to be upgraded at the scale that is required for this data center to be pushed through.”
“We have plenty of data centers to process what we need to do. These things are extracting our freedom. . . So, I’m against them in principle.”
– Karen Fentress
In the meantime, Karen Fentress, the owner of local insurance company, was entirely unimpressed by the supposed benefits that a new data center would have for businesses like hers that make use of AI.
“We have plenty of data centers to process what we need to do,” she declared. “These things are extracting our freedom…So, I’m against them in principle.”
A pause…or a hard pass
Some of the residents who spoke up on Monday wanted no part in the development of data centers even if the county was to use the proposed moratorium to implement new regulations.
“If it was up to me there would not be a data center developer setting foot in Alamance County,” asserted Paul Stansberry. “Data centers would only bring harm to our community…A data center brings in very few jobs, it takes up large amounts of land, and pollutes our soil and waterways.”
“I just don’t think we need data centers here. . . There’s a lot of industry here, and it’s beautiful when it’s owned by a small business. . . But I can assure you Oracle doesn’t give a crap about Alamance County. They just want money. They won’t follow any regulations.”
– Luke Mennona
Luke Mennona of Snow Camp likewise said he’d prefer an all-out ban to a pause. “I just don’t think we need data centers here…There’s a lot of industry here, and it’s beautiful when it’s owned by a small business…But I can assure you Oracle doesn’t give a crap about Alamance County. They just want money. They won’t follow any regulations.”
Leslie Arevalo, a political strategist by trade, was also a disinclined to welcome any new data centers regardless of which way the political winds may be blowing. “I don’t want data centers in my county. Alamance County is so beautiful. I was born and raised here…AI data centers, they can go somewhere else.”
Meanwhile, Drew Benton was even more laconic in his stance on Big Data.
“I think we have enough data,” he conceded. “I’m still a hard ‘no.’”
