PlanningCommission@spokanecounty.gov , MBROOKS@spokanecounty.gov , CJORDAN@spokanecounty.gov , AWALDREF@spokanecounty.gov 1. Page 6, #4a — Tier 1 reclaimed water is exempt from the net-new withdrawal limits. Reclaimed water is still a limited public resource and should not be treated as impact-free. o Suggested language: “Tier 1 systems shall remain subject to project- specific maximum daily, peak-day, and annual water-use limits and cumulative water-supply impact review.” 2. Page 6, #4b — A WUE of 0.3 L/kWh is an efficiency standard, not a total water-use cap. At 1,000 MW of IT load, it could allow roughly 694 million gallons per year. o Suggested language: “In addition to WUE requirements, each Large- Load Data Center shall be subject to enforceable maximum daily, peak- day, and annual water-use limits.” 3. Pages 1–3 — No clear anti-segmentation or aggregation language. A project could potentially be divided among phases, buildings, parcels, or affiliated entities to avoid the 20 MW Large-Load threshold or cumulative review. o Suggested language: “Related phases, facilities, buildings, parcels, affiliates, and shared infrastructure shall be aggregated based upon the reasonably foreseeable full buildout of the project.” 4. Page 7, #1(b) — “Infrastructure uniquely required to serve the project” is too narrow. Infrastructure caused or accelerated by the project could instead be characterized as a general system improvement. o Suggested language: “The applicant shall be responsible for all incremental infrastructure costs caused, accelerated, or made necessary by the project, including generation, transmission, substations, distribution, system upgrades, and stranded costs.” 5. Page 6, #4(b)/(c) — Five-year averaging could conceal extremely high water consumption during individual years or drought periods. o Suggested language: “Water-use limits shall be satisfied annually and on an established peak-day basis and shall not be satisfied solely through multi-year averaging.” 6. Page 5, #1(c) — The Tier 3 exemption relies on the undefined phrase “not feasible.” This could allow economic considerations rather than actual technological limitations to justify an exemption. o Suggested language: “An exemption may be approved only upon clear technical evidence that compliance is physically or technologically infeasible. Economic cost or reduced profitability alone shall not constitute infeasibility, and any approved alternative shall provide equal or greater water-resource protection.” 7. Page 7, #1(c)–(d) — The water feasibility review focuses heavily on whether sufficient water exists for the applicant rather than the cumulative needs of the community. o Suggested language: “The feasibility study shall evaluate existing customers, projected population growth, drought conditions, future municipal needs, pending or reasonably foreseeable large-load projects, and cumulative water commitments.” 8. Page 2, §14.830.130(2) — Major Industrial Development could become an alternative permitting pathway. Combining a data center with hydrogen production or another industrial use should not allow the project to avoid Data Center requirements. o Suggested language: “Classification as a Major Industrial Development, master-planned development, or other alternative land- use classification shall not exempt, supersede, or reduce any requirement of Chapter 14.830.” 9. Page 7, #1(b) — Financial responsibility requires documentation but lacks an explicit financial guarantee. These are multi-billion-dollar projects, and existing ratepayers should not assume the risk if projected loads never materialize or the facility later closes. o Suggested language: “Prior to construction, the applicant shall provide binding agreements, financial guarantees, minimum-demand commitments, exit fees, bonds, or equivalent security sufficient to protect existing ratepayers from project-related infrastructure costs and stranded assets.” 10. Page 10, #2 — “Minimal” wastewater discharge is undefined and difficult to enforce. · Suggested language: “The County shall establish measurable maximum discharge volumes and applicable treatment standards for all wastewater discharged or transferred from the facility.” 11. Page 6, #4(b)(i) — “Expected to not exceed” 120,000 gallons is not mandatory language. · Suggested language: “Net-new withdrawal shall not exceed 120,000 gallons annually.” 12. Page 1, Definition #3 — “Infrequent recharges” for Closed-Loop Cooling Systems is undefined. Without a measurable restriction, continuing makeup-water consumption could potentially be characterized as system recharge. · Suggested language: “Recharge shall be limited to documented commissioning, maintenance, or replacement of fluid lost through verified mechanical leaks, shall not include losses caused by evaporation or routine system operation, and shall not exceed an established annual volume.” 13. Pages 5–6, §14.830.190 — Water Source Standards apply only to Large- Load Data Centers. A 19.9 MW facility could potentially avoid these water protections even if it uses a water-intensive evaporative cooling system. · Suggested language: “Water Source Standards shall apply to any Data Center exceeding an established daily, peak-day, or annual water-use threshold, regardless of electrical-load classification.” 14. Page 4, #3(c) — Annual noise monitoring is not explicitly required to be conducted independently. Pre- and post-construction testing require a third- party acoustical engineer, but the annual study does not clearly contain the same requirement. · Suggested language: “Annual ambient noise studies shall be conducted by an independent third-party acoustical engineer approved by the County and paid for by the operator.” 15. Page 3, #1(d) — “No vibration perceptible to the human sense of feeling” is subjective and difficult to enforce. · Suggested language: “Vibration shall comply with an objective engineering standard establishing measurable vibration limits at the property line, including the applicable metric, instrumentation, and testing methodology.” 16. Pages 7–9, Emergency Response / Aquifer Protections — Containment of contaminated firefighting runoff is not explicitly required. Battery fires can generate contaminated suppression water, foam, electrolytes, metals, and other hazardous runoff. · Suggested language: “Emergency response systems shall provide sufficient containment to prevent contaminated fire-suppression water, foam, battery electrolytes, and other hazardous runoff from reaching soil, groundwater, stormwater systems, surface waters, or aquifers.” 17. Page 7, #1(d) — Water feasibility should evaluate seasonal and drought-period availability, not simply annual supply. A source may appear adequate annually while being constrained during summer peak demand. · Suggested language: “The water feasibility study shall demonstrate adequate supply under average, peak-day, peak-season, and drought conditions for the reasonably foreseeable full buildout of the project.” 18. Page 6, #5 — Annual public water reporting may be too infrequent for facilities using millions of gallons per day. Significant overuse might not become public until long after it occurs. · Suggested language: “Water withdrawal, consumption, reuse, and discharge data shall be reported publicly at least monthly, with prompt notice to the County upon exceeding any permitted daily, peak-day, or annual limit.” These are multi-billion dollar industries with very expensive lawyers - we need strong protections and should be pushing for a longer permit ban. Also, there's multiple Avista permits for upgrading the electrical infrastructure near the data center location already in progress. Who is paying for that?