improvements Hi Rona, thanks for the time to speak today. Could you please forward this to Mr. Camporeale and the other planning board members? Also, when does Mr. Chesney expect to have a new draft of the ordinance available for review? Thank you, Jeff Mergler On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 7:37 AM Jeffrey Mergler jeffreymergler@gmail.com wrote: Dear Planning Board Members and Commissioners I am writing today to give you feedback on the proposed Spokane County Data Center Ordinance (DRAFT). Let me begin by complimenting the board on a good first draft, specifically in the following areas: · The delineation and definition of Large Load Data Centers starting at 20MW and above. This should be preserved. · The strong noise limits, specifically 50 dBA, which is more protective than the 67dBA day and 57 dBA night baselines. This should be preserved. · The addressing of the low-frequency noise and tonal hum by limiting this to no more than 5 dBC above background ambient levels. This should be preserved. · Pre-construction noise and vibration studies and annual post construction noise audits. This should be preserved. · Aquifer Contamination Safeguards: environmental protections are present for chemical systems and recharge zones. This should be preserved. · Backup Generator operations are reasonable. Preserve this. However, significant problems remain that must be addressed for this ordinance to fully protect the community. Problem 1: The current draft fails to fully protect the region's water supply. The Spokane Valley- Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer is a sole-source drinking water supply. The county must legally mandate that corporate tech expansion does not prioritize server cooling over the community's water security. Specifically, · The "0.3 WUE" is a loophole, not a cap. While 0.3 liters per kilowatt-hour sounds minimal, it scales aggressively. If the data center operates at its requested 1,000 MW capacity, a 0.3 WUE allowance means the facility could legally consume and evaporate nearly 700 million gallons of water annually or 1.9 million gallons of water daily. · Enforce a true "Closed-Loop": The ordinance's current definition of a Closed Loop Cooling System in Section 14.840.110 is contradicted by allowing a 0.3 WUE in Section 14.840.230. A true closed-loop system requires zero consumptive water loss for cooling. The ordinance must enforce a 0.0 WUE metric to be effective. Fix: we need clear, unambiguous language to eliminate regulatory gray areas (loopholes) for the West Plains: Strike existing Section 14.840.230(3) and replace with: "3. All Data Centers, regardless of load classification, are strictly prohibited from utilizing open-loop, evaporative, or consumptive water cooling systems. Facilities must exclusively utilize Closed Loop Cooling Systems, achieving an annual average Water Usage Effectiveness (WUE) of 0.0 liters per kilowatt-hour of information technology load. Total site water consumption shall be strictly limited to standard domestic and sanitary human use." Add a supplementary clause to Section 14.840.230(2) for clarity: "2. No Data Center may draw primary cooling or make-up water to recharge the cooling system from private potable wells, municipal water supplies, or the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer." Problem 2: The current draft fails to isolate residential ratepayers from cost increases related to the data center. The draft does indeed require applicants to submit documentation demonstrating that the data center—not residential or general ratepayers —will be financially responsible for uniquely required transmission, distribution, and substation infrastructure. However, · The draft falls short of establishing a fully protective binding large-load tariff structure locally. The draft only authorizes the Board of County Commissioners to pursue a "non- binding coordination framework" with serving utilities (such as Avista) regarding large loads and utility commission proceedings. · The "non-binding coordination framework" in Section 14.840.150 should be made as binding as permissible under county land-use authority to guarantee ratepayer isolation. · Any new or expanded distribution substations must be located on-site or immediately adjacent to the facility. Fix: While utility ratemaking is formally overseen by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) and utility boards, the County has clear statutory authority under Washington land-use law (RCW 36.70B and SEPA) to condition project approval on demonstrated infrastructure adequacy and full developer cost mitigation. Therefore, Strike existing Section 14.840.150 and replace with: "14.840.150: Utility Coordination, Infrastructure Cost Allocation, and Ratepayer Protection 1. Mandatory Utility Service & Cost Allocation Agreement: No building permit or Conditional Use Permit for a Large-Load Data Center shall be issued until the applicant has submitted an executed, legally binding agreement with the Serving Utility (or an approved WUTC Large-Load Tariff schedule / Energy Services Agreement) demonstrating all of the following: · a. Full Developer Cost Allocation: The applicant shall be 100% financially responsible for all capital costs associated with new or upgraded transmission, distribution, substation, and generation infrastructure required to interconnect and serve the project. · b. Take-or-Pay / Minimum Demand Commitments: The service agreement or tariff must include binding minimum demand commitments (take-or-pay capacity obligations) or equivalent financial guarantees to ensure existing residential and commercial ratepayers bear no stranded asset costs or capacity shortfall liabilities. · c. Financial Assurance: The applicant shall furnish financial security (such as an irrevocable letter of credit or performance bond) in favor of the Serving Utility to cover decommissioning, equipment procurement, and infrastructure costs in the event of project default or underutilization. 2. County Intervention & Coordination: The Board of County Commissioners shall intervene and participate in any Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) or Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) docket, proceeding, or special contract filing involving large-load electrical service within Spokane County to enforce ratepayer isolation and system reliability standards." Amend Section 14.840.210(1)(b) to read: "b. Ratepayer Non-Subsidization Verification: Certified documentation and an independent financial analysis confirming that the applicant, and not the Serving Utility or its existing ratepayer base, is legally and financially obligated for all grid infrastructure improvements, power supply acquisitions, and ancillary services necessitated by the facility, in full compliance with SCC 14.840.150." This achieves the following outcomes: · Closes the Voluntary "Coordination" Loophole: A "non-binding framework" provides no legal guarantee against rate increases. Conditioning land-use and building permits on signed utility agreements ensures developers cannot break ground until ratepayer isolation is locked down. · Follows National Precedents: Incorporating take-or- pay structures and minimum demand commitments mirrors established regulatory models like the Ohio AEP data center tariff, safeguarding the local grid from speculative megawatt reservations. · Prevents Stranded Asset Risk: Given that massive load requests can require hundred-million-dollar substation and transmission expansions, upfront financial assurance guarantees that local ratepayers do not inherit the tab if power projections drop. I want to thank the Planning Board and the Commissioners for listening to the people of Spokane County and for taking this data center ordinance with the seriousness it deserves. I hope that you find these suggestions helpful and actionable. Sincerely, Jeff Mergler SCC District 5, Spokane