18 documented items. Counts describe documentation, not harm or severity. One item can have more than one category.
Air and generators: 9 · Health: 2 · Heat: 4 · Land use and zoning: 7 · Light: 2 · Noise: 7 · Other: 4 · Power and electric rates: 8 · Traffic and construction: 1 · Water quality and discharge: 1 · Water use: 10 · Wildlife, wetlands and stormwater: 2
This is a bounded source collection. Missing items do not establish that no concern was raised. A case disposition does not establish facility operating status or resolve the underlying allegations.
View 18 documented items Public concern on the record San Diego County Water use · Power and electric rates · Land use and zoning
City of San Diego published concerns raised by the Mayor about potential data center demands on water, electricity costs, housing opportunities, infrastructure and neighborhoods while directing staff to prepare regulations and a proposed pause. The statement concerns City policy within San Diego County. It does not enact the future Council proposal, establish actual utility increases or find harm at an individual facility.
Record status: Unknown. The selected official record documents institutional concerns and a regulatory review context. Their current resolution, actual environmental or utility effects, individual project eligibility and later legal changes remain unverified. A policy pause does not establish that a concern was resolved.
Event date October 22, 2026
Source publication date October 22, 2026
Disposition date Not established
Concern sources checked October 23, 2026 The official account expressly dates this institutional public statement October 22, 2026. This is not the first earlier community complaint, a final Council vote or the moratorium effective day. The source expressly dates its public statement. This is separate from a legal effective day or the first earlier community complaint.
Raised or recorded by City of San Diego.
No item-specific published company response was verified in the bounded source review. This does not establish that a company declined to respond.
Report a correction · Link to this item
Public concern on the record Air and generators · Power and electric rates · Health
Communities for a Better Environment and Center for Biological Diversity filed comments disputing separate review of adjacent generator facilities and requesting analysis of cumulative air emissions, energy demand and public health for Goodman Energy Park. The groups' arguments and predictions are not agency findings, verified health effects or an Atlas decision to merge facilities.
Record status: Unknown. The individual comment outcome has not been established by this bounded original-source review. A project-page process label is not its disposition.
Event date September 4, 2026
Source publication date September 4, 2026
Disposition date Not established
Concern sources checked October 18, 2026 The retained original filing or effective order provides this exact event date. The retained original CEC docket wrapper gives the publication date, distinct from the source-check date.
Raised or recorded by Communities for a Better Environment and Center for Biological Diversity.
Company statement published by an agency or court. GIC Vernon LLC filed a response disputing the groups' proposed aggregation of the neighboring generator facilities and their air-quality, public-health and cumulative-operation arguments. The applicant cited its own modeling and permitting interpretation. These are company arguments in a public filing, not an agency ruling or independently verified Atlas conclusions.
The applicant reply expressly identifies the September 4 comment TN272337 and answers it in the Vernon exemption proceeding. Its October 13 body date differs from October 14 docket publication. The response does not establish that separate facilities should be merged in the Atlas.
Response publication: October 14, 2026. Response sources checked: October 18, 2026.
Report a correction · Link to this item
Public concern on the record Water use · Power and electric rates · Noise · Heat · Air and generators · Land use and zoning
Residents raised noise, ambient heat, water supply, power reliability and generator concerns in a separate October public filing about RB Inyokern, requesting a full environmental impact report and enforceable protections. These are attributed resident concerns and requests, not verified measurements, agency findings or confirmed effects on wells or nearby institutions. The earlier well association submission remains a separate record.
Record status: Unknown. The published resident filing requests review and protections. Current agency disposition, actual facility impacts and any operator response to this specific filing remain unverified.
Event date October 12, 2026
Source publication date Not established
Disposition date Not established
Concern sources checked October 23, 2026 The official docket cover records filing October 12, 2026 after submission October 11. This dates this separate resident filing, not the earliest earlier community concern or well association submission. The public docket date is established. The exact first online publication day is not separately certified.
Raised or recorded by Residents.
No item-specific published company response was verified in the bounded source review. This does not establish that a company declined to respond.
Report a correction · Link to this item
Public concern on the record San Joaquin County Noise · Water use · Other
San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors and Community Development Department identify questions about computing development water supply, electricity, agriculture, noise, public infrastructure and emergency response in the original October 7, 2026 County account. The account reports a pause and a separate study to examine potential effects and future standards. These are attributed policy concerns rather than measured shortages, a proven agricultural loss, a facility violation or a finding about incorporated cities. Reported pause approval does not establish resolution of these concerns, complete current law or an exact legal endpoint.
Record status: Unknown. The selected institutional account records concern or a proposed legislative reason for review. Current concern resolution, measured facility effects, final current legal disposition and individual project eligibility remain unverified. A pause, draft text, extension or vote does not establish resolution of the underlying concern.
Event date Not established
Source publication date October 7, 2026
Disposition date Not established
Concern sources checked October 24, 2026 The publication date does not independently establish the exact Board vote or first concern day. No meeting day is inferred from the publication header. The original County news account is dated October 7, 2026. This records issuer publication rather than the exact first concern, Board vote, legal commencement or expiry.
Raised or recorded by San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors and Community Development Department.
No item-specific published company response was verified in the bounded source review. This does not establish that a company declined to respond.
Report a correction · Link to this item
Public concern on the record Alameda County Water use · Power and electric rates · Noise · Heat · Land use and zoning · Air and generators · Health
Oakland City Council recorded potential electricity and water demand, generator emissions, noise, heat, vibration, infrastructure and land use compatibility concerns in Ordinance 13899. These are attributed legislative findings and reasons for a temporary approval pause within the City. Actual impacts at 415 20th Street or any other individual facility remain unverified. County aggregation does not extend City authority throughout Alameda County.
Record status: Unknown. The adopted ordinance records City concerns and a temporary approval restriction. Current resolution of the concerns, actual facility effects, later legal amendments and individual property eligibility remain unverified. Legislative adoption does not resolve the underlying concerns.
Event date October 6, 2026
Source publication date Not established
Disposition date Not established
Concern sources checked October 23, 2026 The attested ordinance dates Council passage October 6, 2026. This dates the legislative record rather than the first earlier resident concern. The October 13 filing stamp is separate. The exact first online publication day is not established by the clerk filing stamp or source check date.
Raised or recorded by Oakland City Council.
No item-specific published company response was verified in the bounded source review. This does not establish that a company declined to respond.
Report a correction · Link to this item
Public concern on the record Air and generators · Power and electric rates · Water use · Wildlife, wetlands and stormwater · Noise · Light
Center for Biological Diversity filed comments requesting environmental analysis and mitigation for NorthTown, raising generator air emissions, energy demand, water, biological resources, noise and lighting. These are the group's concerns and requests in the exemption proceeding, not agency findings or verified measurements.
Record status: Unknown. The individual comment outcome has not been established by this bounded original-source review. A project-page process label is not its disposition.
Event date August 20, 2026
Source publication date August 20, 2026
Disposition date Not established
Concern sources checked October 18, 2026 The retained original filing or effective order provides this exact event date. The retained original CEC docket wrapper gives the publication date, distinct from the source-check date.
Raised or recorded by Center for Biological Diversity.
Company statement published by an agency or court. GIC San Jose LLC filed a response disputing the group's assumptions about generator operation and environmental effects, and described its own energy, water and biological-resource analysis. The applicant's filing is linked as its position; its cited technical studies are not independently verified Atlas findings.
The applicant filing expressly answers the Center for Biological Diversity letter TN272073. It is not an agency ruling, evidence of a current operating role or a response to the separate Valley Water letter.
Response publication: September 24, 2026. Response sources checked: October 18, 2026.
Report a correction · Link to this item
News report Noise · Water use · Heat · Traffic and construction
Central Sierra Broadcasting reported questions about cooling water, fan noise and heat management for the Buena Vista AI Factory proposal near Ione, and truck traffic for its associated biomass power plant. The reporting distinguishes proposed computing from the separate power-plant component; these are reported questions, not measured effects or agency findings.
Record status: Unknown. The current disposition of these reported concerns is not established by this bounded review.
Event date Not established
Source publication date August 21, 2026
Disposition date Not established
Concern sources checked October 18, 2026 A single exact interview or concern-event day is not established. The two article publication days are not substituted for an event date. Part two displays August 21, 2026; the earlier project/position article displays August 19. These are separate publication dates.
Raised or recorded by Central Sierra Broadcasting.
Company statement reported by an outlet. NewYork GreenCloud described plans for biomass-powered, liquid-cooled computing, according to Central Sierra Broadcasting. These earlier company positions do not establish actual operating effects or measured carbon reductions.
The outlet quoted earlier company promotional statements in its August 19 article, before the August 21 questions. August 19 is the news publication date; an exact statement day and a direct reply to the later questions are not established.
Response publication: August 19, 2026. Response sources checked: October 18, 2026.
Report a correction · Link to this item
Permit and comment Water use · Water quality and discharge · Wildlife, wetlands and stormwater
Valley Water requested environmental-review analysis of water supply, flooding, shallow groundwater, stormwater and protection of the adjacent Guadalupe River for NorthTown. The agency recommended spill controls and protection of wells. Its comment requests assessment and safeguards; it does not establish a discharge, present contamination caused by the project or a permit violation.
Record status: Unknown. The individual comment outcome has not been established by this bounded original-source review. A project-page process label is not its disposition.
Event date August 20, 2026
Source publication date August 20, 2026
Disposition date Not established
Concern sources checked October 18, 2026 The retained original filing or effective order provides this exact event date. The retained original CEC docket wrapper gives the publication date, distinct from the source-check date.
Raised or recorded by Valley Water.
No item-specific published company response was verified in the bounded source review. This does not establish that a company declined to respond.
Report a correction · Link to this item
Public concern on the record Santa Clara County Water use · Power and electric rates · Other
City of Santa Clara staff recorded a Council request for limits on the type and quantity of water used by computing facilities and questions about demand side grid support. Staff proposes further water efficiency, recycled water, siting and review standards. These are attributed municipal policy questions rather than measured harm, an enacted new water standard or a Countywide finding. The same report separately describes a Silicon Valley Power application limitation, which does not establish a general City land use ban or individual project violation.
Record status: Unknown. The selected institutional account records concern or a proposed legislative reason for review. Current concern resolution, measured facility effects, final current legal disposition and individual project eligibility remain unverified. A pause, draft text, extension or vote does not establish resolution of the underlying concern.
Event date August 18, 2026
Source publication date Not established
Disposition date Not established
Concern sources checked October 24, 2026 The original staff report identifies the August 18, 2026 Council request and motion to agendize future policy discussion. This dates the reported institutional action rather than first public concern, the later presentation, final policy adoption or source publication. The exact first public posting day of this original government document is not independently established. Signed instrument dates and printed meeting dates remain separate.
Raised or recorded by City of Santa Clara staff.
No item-specific published company response was verified in the bounded source review. This does not establish that a company declined to respond.
Report a correction · Link to this item
Permit and comment Land use and zoning · Air and generators · Noise
City of San Jose issued a categorical CEQA exemption notice for the proposed data center reuse at 300 Holger Way. Its analysis describes interior reuse and no proposed new generators. These are the scope and conclusions of the environmental record, not a measured noise or air quality finding, confirmation of all permits or an operating milestone.
Record status: Unknown. The bounded review establishes the documented action and attributed statements only. It does not establish final resolution of underlying public concerns, present compliance or measured site effects.
Event date July 9, 2026
Source publication date July 16, 2026
Disposition date Not established
Concern sources checked October 22, 2026 July 9, 2026 is the signed notice and county filing day. The older June 2 exemption statement and July 16 state index posting are separate dates. July 16, 2026 is the publication day of the state index. The original PDF first upload day is not established.
Raised or recorded by City of San Jose.
No item-specific published company response was verified in the bounded source review. This does not establish that a company declined to respond.
Report a correction · Link to this item
Public concern on the record Water use · Heat · Noise · Light · Other
Indian Wells Valley Domestic Well Owner's Association filed an objection to the RB Inyokern exemption application, raising water-supply, waste-heat, noise, night-lighting and electromagnetic-interference concerns and requesting a comprehensive environmental review. These are the association's concerns, not verified measurements, agency findings or independently confirmed statements from the Navy.
Record status: Unknown. The individual comment outcome has not been established by this bounded original-source review. A project-page process label is not its disposition.
Event date July 13, 2026
Source publication date July 13, 2026
Disposition date Not established
Concern sources checked October 18, 2026 The agency wrapper records submission and docket filing on July 13, 2026. The attached association letter is dated July 11; that letter date is not substituted for the recorded filing day. The retained original CEC docket wrapper gives the publication date, distinct from the source-check date.
Raised or recorded by Indian Wells Valley Domestic Well Owner's Association.
No item-specific published company response was verified in the bounded source review. This does not establish that a company declined to respond.
Report a correction · Link to this item
Permit and comment Power and electric rates
California Public Utilities Commission approved modified PG&E agreement terms for the proposed Menlo Equities data center and computing lab at 888 Ross Drive. The final resolution describes cost advance and refund protections. This is a utility approval and its terms, not measured rate impacts, actual refunds, completed energization or an operating facility.
Record status: Unknown. The bounded review establishes the documented action and attributed statements only. It does not establish final resolution of underlying public concerns, present compliance or measured site effects.
Event date March 19, 2026
Source publication date March 20, 2026
Disposition date Not established
Concern sources checked October 22, 2026 March 19, 2026 is the adoption date. March 20 is issuance. The proposed operating month remains a forecast. The notice or final document publication day is explicit when given. A docketing day remains a filing date. A source check does not replace either date.
Raised or recorded by California Public Utilities Commission.
No item-specific published company response was verified in the bounded source review. This does not establish that a company declined to respond.
Report a correction · Link to this item
Permit and comment Land use and zoning · Air and generators
City of San Jose recorded a site development permit amendment for the Rue Ferrari property, describing research and laboratory use with backup generators and utility equipment. The state notice reports the city approval and environmental determinations. It does not independently establish an operating data center, measured emissions or completion of the equipment.
Record status: Unknown. The bounded review establishes the documented action and attributed statements only. It does not establish final resolution of underlying public concerns, present compliance or measured site effects.
Event date December 10, 2025
Source publication date December 18, 2025
Disposition date Not established
Concern sources checked October 22, 2026 December 10, 2025 is the recorded approval date. December 18 is the state notice posting date. The notice or final document publication day is explicit when given. A docketing day remains a filing date. A source check does not replace either date.
Raised or recorded by City of San Jose.
No item-specific published company response was verified in the bounded source review. This does not establish that a company declined to respond.
Report a correction · Link to this item
Regulator record Power and electric rates · Land use and zoning · Other
City of Santa Clara recorded Planning Commission questions about power use, environmental concerns and alternative land uses for the proposed 1231 Comstock data center. The report says the Commission denied the use permit and variances on October 23, 2024 and made findings about orderly growth, job intensity, surrounding uses and variance justification. Staff recommended approval and the applicant appealed. Those attributed agency findings are separate from the later Council environmental action and do not establish measured environmental harm, an operating violation or final resolution of underlying concerns.
Record status: Unknown. The bounded review establishes the documented action and attributed statements only. It does not establish final resolution of underlying public concerns, present compliance or measured site effects.
Event date October 23, 2024
Source publication date Not established
Disposition date Not established
Concern sources checked October 23, 2026 The Council report identifies the October 23, 2024 Planning Commission hearing and denial motions. The later appeal and environmental actions have separate dates and scopes. The Council record identifies the December 3, 2024 agenda action, but its exact first online publication day was not established.
Raised or recorded by City of Santa Clara.
Company statement published by an agency or court. Prime Data Centers stated in its appeal, as reported by City of Santa Clara, that the project met or exceeded city zoning and design requirements and asked the Council to overturn the Commission decision. This is the applicant position, not an independent compliance certification or proof of construction and operation.
The same Council report recounts the applicant appeal of the October 23, 2024 Commission denials for this project. The response is an applicant statement, without certifying a current operating role.
Response publication: Not established. Response sources checked: October 23, 2026.
Report a correction · Link to this item
Permit and comment Air and generators
California Energy Commission adopted Order 24-0612-03h certifying the final environmental impact report, adopting mitigation monitoring and granting a Small Power Plant Exemption for the Martin backup generating facility. The order describes the exemption and mitigation procedure; it does not establish facility operation, all local permits or present compliance.
Record status: Resolved. California Energy Commission issued the order granting this specific Small Power Plant Exemption. Resolved applies only to that exemption proceeding, not every local approval, present compliance, individual comment outcome or physical facility stage.
Event date June 12, 2024
Source publication date June 13, 2024
Disposition date June 12, 2024
Concern sources checked October 18, 2026 The retained original filing or effective order provides this exact event date. The retained original CEC docket wrapper gives the publication date, distinct from the source-check date.
Raised or recorded by California Energy Commission.
No item-specific published company response was verified in the bounded source review. This does not establish that a company declined to respond.
Report a correction · Link to this item
Permit and comment Air and generators
California Energy Commission adopted Order 23-1108-07 certifying the final environmental impact report, adopting mitigation monitoring and granting a Small Power Plant Exemption for the Bowers backup generating facility. The order describes the exemption and mitigation procedure; it does not establish facility operation, all local permits or present compliance.
Record status: Resolved. California Energy Commission issued the order granting this specific Small Power Plant Exemption. Resolved applies only to that exemption proceeding, not every local approval, present compliance, individual comment outcome or physical facility stage.
Event date November 8, 2023
Source publication date November 9, 2023
Disposition date November 8, 2023
Concern sources checked October 18, 2026 The retained original filing or effective order provides this exact event date. The retained original CEC docket wrapper gives the publication date, distinct from the source-check date.
Raised or recorded by California Energy Commission.
No item-specific published company response was verified in the bounded source review. This does not establish that a company declined to respond.
Report a correction · Link to this item
Permit and comment Land use and zoning · Air and generators
California Energy Commission recorded the filing of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lafayette Data Center and backup generating proposal. The cover and filing record identify it as a draft environmental review. This item records that regulatory document, not a final impact determination, permit completion, current compliance or an operating milestone.
Record status: Unknown. The bounded review establishes the documented action and attributed statements only. It does not establish final resolution of underlying public concerns, present compliance or measured site effects.
Event date April 6, 2023
Source publication date Not established
Disposition date Not established
Concern sources checked October 22, 2026 April 6, 2023 is the docketed filing day. The cover reports April 2023; an exact first publication day is not independently established. The notice or final document publication day is explicit when given. A docketing day remains a filing date. A source check does not replace either date.
Raised or recorded by California Energy Commission.
No item-specific published company response was verified in the bounded source review. This does not establish that a company declined to respond.
Report a correction · Link to this item
Permit and comment Water use
Valley Water requested analysis of water demand, supply and recycled-water options in its environmental-review comment for the Martin Data Center at 651 Martin Avenue. The agency also requested protection of existing wells. This is an agency comment requesting analysis, not a finding of excess use, pollution or a permit violation.
Record status: Unknown. The individual comment outcome has not been established by this bounded original-source review. A project-page process label is not its disposition.
Event date March 15, 2023
Source publication date March 15, 2023
Disposition date Not established
Concern sources checked October 18, 2026 The retained original filing or effective order provides this exact event date. The retained original CEC docket wrapper gives the publication date, distinct from the source-check date.
Raised or recorded by Valley Water.
No item-specific published company response was verified in the bounded source review. This does not establish that a company declined to respond.
Report a correction · Link to this item
