Pinal County rejects massive La Osa data center. Residents want more rules for future projects
The Pinal County Board of Supervisors rejected Vermaland's plan for the massive La Osa Energy Center, a data center development outside Eloy, Arizona. Residents voiced strong opposition, citing concerns over water usage, energy demands, and the lack of specific data center regulations in the county's zoning code. The rejection, despite Vermaland's proposed reductions, has led to calls for the county to establish clearer rules for future data center projects.
The Pinal County Board of Supervisors in Arizona recently rejected the La Osa Energy Center, a significant data center development proposed by Vermaland near Eloy. Originally envisioning 59 data center buildings and a 3-gigawatt energy demand, the project was scaled back to 11 data center buildings, a 500-megawatt natural gas plant, and battery storage. The developers also self-imposed limits on water use, capping fresh water at 600 acre-feet, and committed to covering all energy costs.
Despite these concessions, residents, including Robin Davis of Hidden Valley and Mary Eileen Flanagan, opposed the project. Concerns centered on the adequacy of water supply in the Pinal Active Management Area, where Flanagan noted existing issues with aquifer overdrawing and land subsidence causing wells to dry up. Supervisors also questioned how Vermaland planned to meet the full 1-gigawatt energy demand, as only 500 megawatts were secured. Supervisor Jeffrey McClure pointed out that much of the available solar power in the region is already committed.
Karen Mooney, a planning and zoning commissioner, highlighted that the county's initial comprehensive plan approval was based on incomplete and inaccurate information, with no mention of data centers being part of the proposal. Pinal County currently lacks specific zoning definitions or development requirements for data centers, leading residents like Mark Seidel to urge county leaders to establish clear "guardrails" for future projects. The supervisors ultimately voted 4-1 to deny the rezoning and development plans, with Supervisor Stephen Miller dissenting, arguing that the rejection went against property rights and national defense interests.