The applicant proposes a data-center and energy campus with gas generation, solar power, and battery storage. Its air-modeling protocol describes roughly 1,000 megawatts of natural-gas generation from three turbines. This independent public record helps residents follow decisions, understand proposed safeguards, and find opportunities to comment.
We distinguish documented decisions, applicant statements, proposed protections, and unanswered questions.
Explore the project map ↗Applicant’s map · PDF pages 15–16. Red outline: project area; dashed line: context buffer. Not a surveyed construction footprint.
Applicant statement · May 2026 air-modeling protocol
Proposed power generation
The applicant describes a natural-gas power plant as part of the broader data-center and energy campus.
About 1,000 MW
Proposed electrical generating capacity — approximately 1 gigawatt. This figure describes the gas plant, not the campus’s electricity demand.
3 gas turbines
GE 7HA.02 turbines operating in simple-cycle mode and fueled by pipeline-quality natural gas.
Up to 8,760
Operating hours per year proposed for each turbine — allowing year-round operation.
Planned pollution controls: selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and oxidation catalysts on each turbine to reduce air emissions.
Proposal status: These are the applicant’s proposed specifications and operating assumptions. The September 30 records release does not establish final permitted capacity, operating limits or an air-quality compliance finding.
Source: SWCA Environmental Consultants, Site Layer 4 Project — Class II Air Dispersion Modeling Protocol, May 2026, §2.2 (PDF p. 8), attached in 26-866 Emails Final.pdf, released September 30, 2026. View the DEQ request and released documents →
Where things stand
Zoning approval has been reported. The county reportedly approved industrial zoning on September 2. The final signed conditions remain unverified. Rezoning alone does not authorize construction of the campus.
Countywide rules are still proposed. Planning & Zoning recommended changes for data centers, expansion, and associated power facilities. Final adoption has not been verified.
The state review path remains unresolved. Reviewed records show preliminary coordination, but do not establish the project's permitting or exemption outcome.
Federal tariff accepted with a compliance condition. FERC accepted Tri-State's large-load tariff subject to a compliance condition. Tri-State filed its response September 9; acceptance of that response remains unverified.
County hearing date needs confirmation. The notice has displayed both October 7 and October 20 at 1 p.m. MDT. Confirm with the Planning Office before attending. No confirmed resolution was found as of September 28. Federal participation was last checked September 21; the September 9–21 docket search returned the existing filing and notice only. Sources, search boundary and remaining limits →
Take action
Meet the developer and have your say
Ask questions at the developer’s open house, or submit comments through the county and federal processes. Each opportunity has a different purpose.
Examples are proposed requests; check official notices before attending or filing.
Developer-hostedCommunity open house
Meet the developer. Bring your questions.
5:30–7 p.m. · Wheatland local time
Wheatland Agriplex Building 59 Antelope Road, Wheatland, Wyoming
Site Layer 4, LLC has announced an informal introductory session about its proposed co-located energy and digital infrastructure project. Residents are invited to meet the developer, ask questions and share comments.
This is a developer-hosted meeting. It is separate from the county hearing and federal filing deadline below. Sharing comments here does not replace submitting comments through those official processes.
Announcement checked September 24, 2026. Times are shown as local to the Wheatland venue; the announcement does not specify a timezone. Check the source for updates before attending.
Whether Tri-State’s revised tariff satisfies an order to file certain large-load agreements for federal review.
Why residents may care
The stakes are who pays if a large customer’s project falls through. Requiring agreements with different Basin Electric terms to be filed lets FERC review the financial backing meant to protect other cooperative members from those costs.
Who may want to follow
Cooperative members and residents following large-load costs and agreement terms.
What it does not decide
Site Layer 4 permits, local operating rules or county funding. This is not a new vote on the whole tariff; the project’s actual utility agreements remain unverified.
Technical scope and source records
The September 9 compliance filing concerns revised §§3.6 and 5.3.1: filing non-conforming agreements when Basin Electric imposes different terms. Relevant comments address whether those revisions satisfy paragraphs 80–82 of FERC’s August 14 order. September 30 is a filing deadline, not a promised decision date.
For county-rule comments, copy one or two sentences below and adapt them to your own concern. Add a relevant rule, record or personal experience if helpful. Federal comments should address the narrower filing question above.
I ask that the county’s data-center rules require a defined water budget and developer-funded independent baseline testing of nearby wells before pumping begins.
I ask that the county’s data-center rules identify who will inspect projects, how often inspections will occur, what results will be public, and what lawful remedies apply when rules are broken.
I ask that the county’s data-center rules require financial security that can be used to pay for removal and site restoration if a project closes or is abandoned.
I ask that the county’s data-center rules require lawful, binding agreements identifying the developer’s share of added road, emergency service and independent review costs.
I ask that the county’s data-center rules set measurable noise and lighting limits, appropriate distances from neighboring properties, and a clear process for checking compliance.
I ask the county to explain which state reviews apply to a data-center project, what protections those reviews provide, and how the county can lawfully address any gaps.
County timing. No separate written-comment cutoff is stated. Sending comments early is practical advice, not an official deadline. The hearing notice does not guarantee a vote that day.
Proposed requests. The examples are not adopted requirements; some build on existing rules or meeting discussion, and others are new requests. County authority must be established for each proposed condition.
Keep a copy. Retain written comments and seek receipt confirmation if needed; acknowledgment or permanent retention is not promised here.
General tariff protections; project commitments unverified.
The tariff addresses wholesale cost and reliability risks, but reviewed records do not establish this project’s signed utility agreements or posted security.
