With Amended CHR 3-2020, the Kent County Commissioners, for a second time, lost an opportunity to “get it right” by allowing unrestricted Data Processing Centers in the County. An emerging and controversial building type, large centers have egregiously impacted communities nationwide and smaller centers are not without risks and challenges. Getting it right would have meant welcoming data centers only after the Land Use Ordinance is revised, assuring safeguards to protect the welfare of the public and environment. Will we be the next community negatively impacted?
The computing “cloud” is not in the sky; in actuality it exists in Data Processing Centers. These are resource-hungry warehouses holding computing, networking and artificial intelligence equipment that operates 24/7, year round. They range in sizes from Tier I up to the behemoth Tier V which can cover up to 50 acres under roof. Their greatest operational challenge is protecting vast amounts of equipment – keeping it safe from overheating, power loss and unauthorized entry. There is much more.
As an architect and planner responsible for the planning and design of varied large and complex projects, I drew upon my experience and research to determine what it could mean to have Data Centers in Kent County. I also looked at what other communities have experienced. The information is easily accessible online and I urge everyone to do the research.
Alarmingly, I determined that Data Centers, regardless of size, are “special needs buildings” with serious environmental and community implications. They require staggering amounts of water and electricity for cooling and produce excessive noise, sometimes heard for miles. Huge diesel generators are needed to provide backup power, increasing noise and reducing air quality. Centers generate vast amounts of waste due to constant updating and emit unknown levels of EMF’s which are harmful to humans. Greenhouse gas emissions are also staggering.
It was no surprise to find serious community impacts where these centers have been located. Electric and water use was unanticipated and overwhelming, draining local water sources. Neighbors were plagued by noise from cooling equipment and generators which rattled windows, real estate values near the facilities plummeted preventing owners from selling to find quiet.
Data Centers are not job producers with most employing around 30 people. The high-level tech positions are filled outside of the community leaving only a handful of low-level jobs for locals and they won’t be built by local contractors. Contractors specializing in Data Center building are hired using their own forces and subcontractors to economize on time and money.
I do not oppose Data Centers and encourage allowing appropriate tax producing ratables in Kent County. However, I do oppose approving a Bill which does not responsibly restrict the tiers and lacks specific safeguards to protect the community and the environment. I also object to the lack of public discussion by the Commissioners which would have demonstrated an understanding of what a Data Processing Center facility entails and their negative impacts. Nor was there discussion about future expansions which will be driven by exponential industry growth.
Without guidelines, how can the planning staff effectively evaluate an application? Why weren’t safeguards first placed in the Land Use Ordinance? How was this fundamental duty overlooked? Who was asleep at the steering wheel at this important crossroad in Kent County’s planning history? Answers should be provided.
Dismayed, I submitted safeguard suggestions to the Commissioners, including limiting centers to only Tier I and II, with Tier I in the Commercial District and no centers in the Agricultural and Residential Districts. Further suggested were allowable square foot areas in synch with adjacent neighborhoods, throttling the operation for electric and water usage, noise levels, cooling and backup power systems and requiring hazmat waste disposal and exterior security plans.
I also suggested “green” building design features to reduce resources, greenhouse gases and noise levels, along with design charrettes. These are open information sharing sessions with the community as stakeholders in the planning process with developers. Green design and charrettes should be a mandatory requirement for approval. It is that important.
These suggestions would assure the successful integration of Data Centers in the County as “good neighbors”. At least the Commissioners were correct to restrict centers from the Agricultural District. It is imperative to keep it that way.
The Bill prioritizes tax revenue over public welfare. It allows a developer to pursue approval for a center of any tier and to do so without targeted restrictions. The door is open to savvy tech developers to capitalize on their investment at our expense.
Can we assure Kent County’s future and correct this debacle? The answer is “yes” with a moratorium on accepting applications for Data Processing Centers until the Land Use Ordinance has been appropriately revised with public input, thoughtful leadership, responsible planning and reflection of the Comprehensive Plan.
Thomas Kocubinski is the principal architect at Kocubinski Architects.
Ed LoBello says
Kudos to Mr. Kucubinski.
David Foster says
Dear Mr. Kocubinski,
I am no expert on data centers and I appreciate your efforts to help inform all of us. Unfortunately, when you rely on comments like “staggering amounts of water and electricity,” it is of limited value. Just how much is a “staggering amount?” Better yet, how would it compare to the water and energy required by a farm or a manufacturing or food processing facility? Likewise, when you talk about the generation of “vast amounts” of waste or “staggering amounts” of greenhouse gasses, please help us to quantify these estimates and compare them to other potential land uses. Finally, when you speak of employment potential per acre, please also see if you could direct us to a source that would help us compare the employment potential of data centers to other current or potential uses.
Thanks again for your efforts to help us understand the implications of this potential land use.
Janet Christensen-Lewis says
David,
I think you are making the point that Mr. Kocubinski was trying to make. Elected officials (which you are) should have a basic understanding of the economics and resources used by data centers and the impacts on the environment before passing unrestricted zoning ordinances. The questions you pose are the ones that need answering before Land Use Ordinances are amended to include them not after.
Thomas Kocubinski says
Mr. Foster,
To meet the word limit, I refrained from addressing the technical details. But your questions are excellent and I welcome providing input. For general comparisons, data processing centers now use roughly 2% of the world’s electric which is expected to soar to 8% by 2030. They are also on par with the aviation industry in releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Most data centers use water-based cooling systems and the Energy Department predicts water usage of 174 billion gallons in 2020. Take Google’s South Carolina data center, it is allowed to use half a million gallons of ground water a day with a request for an increase to 1.5 million gallons per day. The average US household uses 138 gallons a day.
For specific input, identifying the class of data center or ‘tier’ is fundamental. A tier is another way of saying ‘level of service’. Tiers differentiate the requirements for each type of center focusing on redundant components, critical load distribution paths, cooling and more. The greater the tier the more resource demands. A Tier I center can be a powered warehouse and not very sophisticated. However, a Tier IV data center provides two times the amount of required operation, or 2N, for cooling and redundant power and infrastructure thereby upping the size, complexity, resources and concerns.
For this reply, I will cite a newly built NJ Tier IV center which is a likely candidate for placement on a large land parcel in the County. The center is 360,000 square feet or 8.3 acres in size. Its critical power capacity is 26 Megawatts, expandable to 34 MW. For comparison, 1 MW can power roughly 1,000 houses and therefore this center could power 26,000 to 34,000 houses. Kent County’s population is about 19,000. For backup power, 18 MW of critical UPS power is provided by a total of 16, 9-ton diesel generators requiring 100,000 gallons of fuel on site. The backup system can power about 18,000 houses and the stored fuel averages about .5 gallons for each land acre in Kent County. All 16, 1500 HP generators are run and tested weekly. More than 6,000 tons of cooling is provided via 8 cooling towers. A typical house requires about 1.5 to 4 tons for cooling. Unlike a farm, the perimeter is secured with security fencing, guardhouse, pan and zoom cameras, bright lighting and a controlled entry gate. The center employs 22 including security equating to only 2.6 employees per acre. It should be obvious that a data center is a very serious building type requiring uppermost scrutiny by any community.
This center was built with sustainability features and uses 2 MW of on-site solar panel power and a rain water collection system. It is LEED Gold Certified; evidence that centers can be planned and built “green”. Ordinances should require it. The ideal would be “net-zero”, balancing energy used with that produced on-site.
Other “good neighbor” design features for consideration include limiting PUE’s (power usage efficiency), WUE (water usage effectiveness), use of free and evaporative cooling and air-cooled chillers, meeting Tier 4 diesel emission standards and more.
I again urge all to do the research to understand the implications of data centers and to be able to request necessary restrictions in your land use ordinance to protect the community and the environment.
Amy Elisabet says
Wow! Mr. Kocubinski knows his facts and has obviously done his due diligence!
Carol Casey says
Are our county council members up for election this year? If so, can we please elect new ones?
Patrick Byrne says
I agree with David Foster. You have made an excellent closing argument BUT you did not present any evidence.
Thomas Kocubinski says
Mr. Byrne,
Kindly see my reply to Mr. Foster’s comments which should satisfy your request and thank you for your comments.