A grassroots coalition in Tucker County says it’s hard to get a handle on what a controversial project in the area even is.
Is it an enormous data center?
Is it a power-generating microgrid?
Is it neither?
State officials have called it “conceptual.”
High Impact Data Centers, slippery like an eel.
As a representative of the grassroots organization Tucker United asked, “When does a project move from ‘conceptual’ to ‘real?'”
This week, West Virginia officials officials rescinded a violation notice previously issued on developer Fundamental Data LLC, concluding that the company’s plans in Tucker County are still foggy.
It’s unclear whether Fundamental Data even intends to pursue a High Impact Data Center as defined under state law, Nick Preservati, director of the state Office of Energy, acknowledged in a letter to the company.
According to West Virginia’s legislation, a data center is required to compare its current or planned operations against the legal definition of a “high impact data center” and notify the Division of Economic Development if it meets or expects to meet that definition.
Officials from Fundamental had provided detail about their vision for the project during a town hall event, and to state officials that description matched the requirements that should have set the clock on officially certifying as a High Impact Data Center.
The Department of Commerce sent a letter dated June 18 to level the assessment that the project is out of alignment with the certification requirement in state code and to ask Fundamental Data to clarify.
Fundamental pushed back immediately to say it plans to generate power, but that there was no certainty on establishing data center yet. That back-and-forth continued with more correspondence and telephone calls.
Fundamental on June 30 wrote that the plan is not yet definite enough to meet the parameters of a High Impact Data Center and said the company will notify the state “when that awareness is reached” about what the project actually is.
“The petition process requires a sworn statement that the Petitioner meets the High Impact Data Center definition,” wrote Casey Chapman, who describes himself as a responsible individual for Fundamental Data.
“It would not be right to submit that sworn statement unless we are certain the facts within it are true. Those facts have not been established, and we cannot file until they are.”
After all that, state officials lifted the violation notice and called the project “conceptual.”
Tucker United is a grassroots coalition of residents and interested people advocating for transparent decision-making and sustainable land use.
“Fundamental Data’s response to the Department of Commerce is alarming,” said Nikki Forrester, communications director for Tucker United. “During public and private meetings, the company stated they plan to build three power plants and 1,500 acres of data centers.
“If these plans are merely ‘conceptual,’ then why would they make these claims to the community and government officials? Why does their website tout the project as a ‘large-scale data and energy infrastructure project?’ Why did they apply for an air-quality permit?” she said.
Forrester continued, “These correspondences also highlight a critical and unanswered question in the microgrid and data center certification process — when does a project move from ‘conceptual’ to ‘real?'”
The initial correspondence from Fundamental Data to the state contended the project does not necessarily represent data center development. Instead, Fundamental wrote, the company aims to develop electric generation that could be attractive for data centers to use.
“The data centers contemplated for the project remain conceptual, and what is ultimately built will be determined by the eventual users of the power we generate,” Fundamental’s Casey Chapman wrote, adding that those users might or might not qualify as data centers under the state’s definition.
Chapman also took issue with how the dispute arose, saying Fundamental Data had attended a meeting with state officials and local leaders to talk openly about the project in good faith.
“The Department now seeks to treat that participation as the predicate for a regulatory violation,” Chapman wrote, saying a company’s candor at a public forum that the agency convened should not be turned into the trigger for an enforcement action.
“That is not how we would expect the State to treat a company that has chosen to invest in West Virginia at no cost or risk to its residents, and we are confident it is not the position the Department wishes to take on reflection.”
A response from the Department of Energy this week took issue with that characterization:
“Obviously, the State appreciates any company willing to invest significant resources here and is willing to deploy all reasonable efforts to help such companies be successful. However, the fact that Fundamental is not seeking financial assistance from the State or Tucker County for this Project does not mean that the project is being done ‘at no cost or risk to its residents’ as asserted in your letter.
“Responsible and experienced developers understand that even the best projects entail some risk and raise legitimate concerns from the public.”
The letter from the state concluded by saying, “The Department strongly encourages Fundamental to not wait to engage with it and the local community as it continues to develop its Ridgeline Project.”
Tucker United’s Forrester expressed appreciation that the Department of Commerce acknowledged the project poses risks for Tucker County residents while encouraging Fundamental Data to engage with the community.
“Responsible and experienced companies don’t change their plans every time tough questions and state regulations arise. Good companies abide by the rules and meaningfully engage with community members and local officials,” she said.
“Fundamental Data has shown once again that they’re not a good fit for Tucker County. They’d rather hide behind opaque and shifting plans than follow the rules and address our community’s concerns.”