California Judge Orders Full Environmental Review of 330 MW Data Center

retained text

California Judge Orders Full Environmental Review of 330 MW Data Center
A California judge says Imperial County must review a proposed 330 MW data center and its power, water, battery, and generation infrastructure.
Imperial County must set aside key approvals for a planned 330 MW data center and complete a full environmental review before construction can move forward, a California judge has tentatively ruled.
Imperial County Superior Court Judge L. Brooks Anderholt found the County improperly treated the project’s approvals as ministerial and relied on a 2017 environmental review that did not address the development now proposed. If the tentative decision is adopted as the court’s final ruling, the County would need to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) before processing permits for the project, according to Alene Taber, who represents the City of Imperial.
The dispute concerns Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, LLC’s proposal for a roughly 950,000-square-foot data center on about 75 acres southeast of Aten Road and Clark Road. As described in public records, the project would include a 330 MW load, a 330 MW substation, an 862 MWh battery energy storage system (BESS), cooling and water treatment facilities, four 500,000-gallon water tanks, a six-acre retention basin, and a 330 MW emergency generation facility with 132 natural gas generators.
The project would also require transmission interconnections with the Imperial Irrigation District (IID).
The court’s proposed remedy requires the County to identify the entire project and conduct the CEQA environmental review before allowing grading, construction, or other physical development to proceed.
County’s 2017 Review
The dispute centers on Imperial County’s 2017 amendments to its zoning code, which established data centers as permitted uses in certain industrial zones. The County adopted a negative declaration for those amendments, finding that the proposed changes would not have significant environmental effects.
But Judge Anderholt said that the 2017 environmental review did not separately analyze the infrastructure associated with the IVCM project. The tentative decision identifies the BESS, the 330 MW substation, large-scale natural gas generation, high-capacity transmission interconnections, and cooling infrastructure and water treatment facilities as features not addressed in the earlier review.
The County had argued that the 2017 zoning amendment permitted the data center as a matter of right and that the approvals the City challenged were ministerial.
The judge rejected that argument.
“The grading, lot merger, road vacation, electrical facilities, water systems, and related infrastructure serve one cohesive construction and operation of the data center,” the decision said.
The court found that the grading approval was not purely mechanical because the County could impose conditions addressing drainage, roadways, traffic, soil, and safety requirements. The record also showed other discretionary actions associated with the project, including a lot merger and proposed vacation of Leimgruber Road.
Scale and Cumulative Impacts
The project’s scale was central to the City’s argument that the County needed to evaluate the development as an integrated project rather than a collection of separate approvals.
“The data center project is enormous,” Taber said, pointing to the roughly 950,000-square-foot building, battery energy storage system, 330 MW substation and 132 natural gas generators.
“A serial, piecemeal approval process disguises the total impact of the overall project,” she said. “The impacts cannot be meaningfully assessed and disclosed to the public without considering the cumulative impacts caused by all of the data center components together.”
The court found substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project may significantly affect the environment, including impacts involving energy supply and electrical infrastructure, water supply and wastewater, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, hazardous materials and fire safety, traffic and public services, land use, and cumulative and growth-inducing effects.
Water and Power in Focus
The proposed EIR is expected to examine the project’s water demands, the source and availability of that water, wastewater discharge, and energy requirements, Taber said. The project has already faced separate questions about water supply, making water one of the more consequential issues for the environmental review.
The court’s decision identifies the project’s water infrastructure, including four 500,000-gallon tanks, water treatment, and a retention basin, as part of the record supporting further review of water, wastewater, and drainage effects.
On the power side, Taber said the environmental analysis could examine strain on the local grid and reliability issues, the extent of reliance on fossil fuels, and potential cost implications for residents.
She added that the BESS could bring another set of environmental questions. Taber said the EIR is expected to examine the potential for thermal runaway in the BESS and the associated risks of fire, explosion, and hazardous emissions.
The review also could address air pollution from construction and natural gas generators, as well as noise from cooling fans and towers, HVAC systems, generators, and technical equipment.
Taber also expects the environmental review to consider whether the project could contribute to a local urban heat island effect that raises local temperatures.
The court cited the project’s continuous electrical demand, construction activity, and natural-gas generation when finding a basis for further review of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
Permitting Strategy and “Whole Project” Review
The decision could affect how developers structure and present large data center projects, according to Neil Osnato, an infrastructure analyst and CEO of Persistence Analytics.
Osnato said the project illustrates why permitting should reflect how the underlying infrastructure operates.
The IVCM project combines a 330 MW data center, a 330 MW substation, 862 MWh battery system, and 330 MW of on-site generation. Those facilities are designed around a common load and reliability objective. “The environmental and infrastructure consequences therefore arise from the way those pieces interact, not simply from each component viewed in isolation,” Osnato said.
“Permitting strategy should follow the physical system,” he added.
Osnato said an environmental review should examine dependencies among utility supply, transmission, battery charging and discharging, on-site generation, fuel supply, water use, emissions, noise, emergency operations, outage behavior, and restoration. The review should also examine which assumptions make each asset necessary, how often systems are expected to operate, what happens when grid power is constrained or lost, and which upstream utility or transmission upgrades are attributable to the project.
“A data center is not a power load plus a battery plus a generator. It is one coupled infrastructure obligation,” Osnato said.
City Reaction and Next Steps
The City of Imperial said its involvement in the case was motivated by the project’s proximity to residents.
“The City is elated with the court’s tentative decision,” City Manager Dennis Morita said in written comments. “As a tentative decision, there is a process to navigate, but the City is hopeful the tentative decision will become final.”
Morita said the ruling requires the project to undergo an environmental review that addresses potential impacts on water, energy, air quality, hazardous materials, fire safety, noise, and traffic.
He also cautioned against treating the decision as a new legal standard.
“The tentative decision, as written, does not create novel concepts of environmental protection, but applies existing law to a hyperscale data center project,” Morita said. “A project of that sort comes with much in the way of potential benefits, but must be properly analyzed to determine and mitigate environmental impacts.”
The tentative ruling does not require the County to reject the data center, nor does it decide on mitigation measures or ultimate project approvals. The court said the contemplated relief does not direct the County to approve or deny the project. Instead, it directs the County to conduct the environmental review before moving forward.
If adopted as final, the parties would have 20 days after service of notice of entry to meet and confer and submit a proposed writ and judgment, unless the court orders otherwise.
Taber said the decision could have broader implications for California communities considering large data center developments.
“Massive hyperscale data centers cannot bypass CEQA and public review by employing a fast-tracked piecemeal approval process,” Taber said. “They must undergo a comprehensive environmental review that considers alternative locations, buffer zones, and all potential impacts as part of a transparent decision-making process.”

document fetched 2026-09-02 06:31 · canonical https://datacenterknowledge.com/data-center-construction/california-judge-orders-full-environmental-review-of-330-mw-data-center