Evidence notes and source limits

COUNTY-001

“Contemporaneous reporting says commissioners approved the 5,344-acre RAM-to-Industrial rezone on September 2. The signed final action is still being verified.”

Reported action; exact final adoption record unresolved.

S10 news report, opening/four-condition list (E1); S2 pp. 4–5; S5 working transcript ~2:09.

Report states unanimous approval; subsequent meeting discussion refers back to rezoning. Supplied planner report is incomplete as a final instrument.

Obtain signed BOCC minutes, decision/resolution or zoning certificate and any filed conditions. Do not badge “exact adopted conditions verified.”

COUNTY-002

“P&Z recommended RAM reversion if construction did not commence within five years of approval or upon permanent decommissioning. Final BOCC wording remains unconfirmed.”

Signed P&Z recommendation; BOCC attorney proposal; final wording unresolved.

S1 signed minutes, pp. 2–3; S2 p. 4 (E2).

Both triggers appear in recommendation. S2 proposes defining commencement as physical on-site work continuing daily or regularly until completion and discusses removing explanatory sunset text. S10 mentions only five years.

News omission does not prove decommissioning was deleted; draft does not prove retained. Verify both triggers, commencement definition, extension authority, and mechanism. Do not call this a cleanup fund or a five-year operating permit.

COUNTY-003

“P&Z recommended review of an industrial-park subdivision before recording and preliminary site-plan review by the Planning Office, P&Z and commissioners.”

Signed recommendation; proposed strengthening; final condition unresolved.

S1 pp. 2–3, final motion; S2 p. 4 (E3).

Final August 26 motion expressly adds P&Z to preliminary reviewers. S2's attorney addition is review and approval of the subdivision.

Do not infer that BOCC adopted “and approval.” Obtain exact signed wording and parcel-specific subdivision authority. The earlier staff report's omission of P&Z is superseded by the signed P&Z motion.

COUNTY-004

“The rezone recommendation required an SUP for any development; reporting describes that requirement in the final vote. Rezoning is not permission to construct the campus.”

Recommendation verified; final condition reported.

S1 pp. 2–3 (E4); S2 p. 4; S10 condition list; S13 p. 1; S7 §3.05.010(C), p. 16.

Rezone application is checked as rezone, not SUP; zoning and project-use approval are separate.

Obtain final condition and any later SUP application/decision. Do not equate a rezoning vote with construction or operating approval.

COUNTY-005

“Reporting says the owner must sign acceptance of the rezoning conditions. A signed acceptance or recording reference has not been verified.”

Reported requirement; execution/recording not established.

S10 condition list (E5); S2 p. 5 blank; S13 p. 2 contains an application landowner-signature field.

Neither staff report contains the reported fourth condition or acceptance instrument. Signing a rezoning application is not proof of accepting subsequently adopted conditions.

Seek instrument, signatory/capacity, date, complete attached conditions, parcel description and recording number if recorded. No claim that owner refused to sign.

COUNTY-006

“P&Z recommended countywide data-center amendments on September 16. Commissioners must act before the proposed amendments become county law.”

Recommendation corroborated; final adoption not established.

S4 redline; S5 meeting notice and transcript motion windows listed below; S11 §18-5-202(b)–(c), pp. 120–121 (E6).

Official redline matches material motions; statute separates recommendation from commissioner adoption. Later notice schedules commissioner consideration.

Signed September 16 minutes and certified recommendation not retrieved. No later adoption instrument found in bounded search. “Approved amendments” should become “recommended amendments.”

COUNTY-007

“The commercial-district proposal requires data centers to obtain SUPs, permits additional site-specific setbacks and lot sizes, and allows a requirement to rezone to Industrial.”

Recommended/proposed.

S4 proposed rules, §§6.05.030, 6.05.080(J), 6.10.000, pp. 29–30 (E7); S5 ~1:01:19–1:02:40.

Data centers move into an SUP-use subsection; parking is subject to SUP conditions. Existing fire/circulation purpose is not a new funded fire-service agreement.

Not a fixed data-center buffer or mandatory Industrial rezoning in all cases. Verify clean numbering and final adopted text.

COUNTY-008

“P&Z recommended a new or amended SUP when server capacity, power draw or cooling infrastructure expands beyond the original SUP approval.”

Recommended/proposed.

S4 §§6.10.000, 7.10.000, 8.05.060, pp. 30, 35, 38 (E8); S5 ~58:12 and 1:02:04.

Wording compares expansion with what was approved, not merely reviewed. This can reach capacity changes without additional buildings.

Do not add an undefined “material” threshold: the proposed text does not use that word. It does not establish automatic approval, phased off-ramps, or transfer review.

COUNTY-009

“Associated generation and/or storage constructed for a data center's needs would need their own SUP review and applicable federal/state permits.”

Recommended/proposed.

S4 same three sections (E9); S5 ~1:20:22–1:25:58, particularly 1:25:36.

Final posted wording is based on serving the data center, not a same-parcel restriction.

The proposal refers to associated facilities, not only facilities on the same site. Do not claim one SUP is necessarily required for each individual device or that this substitutes for existing solar permits. Battery fire-plan detail is a separate proposed request/applicability check.

COUNTY-010

“The proposal would require a qualifying application to supply an Industrial Siting exemption letter or permit before its first P&Z meeting.”

Recommended/proposed procedural prerequisite.

S4 §§6.10.000, 7.10.000, 8.05.060; S5 ~1:01:40–1:02:00 (E10).

Text allows either state outcome. It is not a requirement for full siting review and does not establish a pending exemption.

“Qualifying” scope needs applicable state law and application facts. Source misnames DEQ as ‘Energy Quality’ and conflates ISC/Division; correct agency name in public prose, flag source drafting error. State exemption consequences are outside the September 20 review.

COUNTY-011

“Proposed industrial application changes add federal permits, replace ‘habitations’ with ‘habitable structures,’ add secondary-containment detail, and expand owner notice from one-quarter mile to one mile.”

Recommended changes to existing adopted application framework.

S4 §7.05.060 (redline displays mixed ‘7.05.0650’), pp. 32–34; S7 §7.05.050(A), pp. 29–30 (E11).

Existing rule already requires an engineering report, one-mile habitation/well mapping, quantified proposed water use, effluent details, traffic analysis and workforce estimate. Not all supporting requirements are new.

Map radius is not a setback. Do not say every Ch. 7 submission applies automatically in commercial/RAM districts without a cross-reference. Obtain clean numbered text and completed project studies.

COUNTY-012

“P&Z also recommended removing the Chapter 3 no-SUP sentence, removing the industrial preexisting-project note, and expressly treating RAM data centers as SUP uses.”

Recommended/proposed.

S4 p. 17 §3.05.010(C); p. 31 §7.05.030; pp. 36–38 §8.05.020/060; S5 ~2:17:04–2:18:05 and 2:27:18–2:27:50 (E12).

Red strikethroughs confirm deletions; RAM record-storage exclusion and data-center section are present.

Deleting a local note does not repeal statutory existing-use protection (§18-5-207). Do not infer retroactive reach.

COUNTY-013

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. The notice lists the Commissioner Room, County Courthouse, 800 9th Street, Wheatland, for comments on proposed countywide land-use rules.

UNRESOLVED date conflict, reviewed September 28, 2026.

S6 September 17 notice, first operative paragraph (E13).

The September 23 check recorded October 20; the September 28 retrieval displays October 7. Neither observation establishes a confirmed resolution; see the dated change history. Scope is general rules; notice does not identify a Site Layer 4 SUP.

No guaranteed hearing-day vote, project approval, remote testimony route or speaker limit established. Recheck notice before attendance/publication.

COUNTY-014

“Written comments may be emailed to planner@plattecountywyoming.com or delivered to the Planning Office in the courthouse. The notice retrieved September 28 gives no separate written-comment cutoff.”

Submission methods checked September 28, 2026; cutoff not stated; hearing date unresolved.

S6 second operative paragraph (E14).

The notice expressly offers email and delivery. Earlier August 20 and September 10 cutoffs belong to different hearings.

Early submission is advice, not an official deadline. Mail, fax, online portal and phone testimony are not established hearing-comment methods by this notice. Do not promise receipt or automatic permanent-record inclusion.

COUNTY-015

“The hearing is at 1 p.m. Mountain Daylight Time (MDT, UTC−6), local Wheatland time.”

Local-time interpretation; notice omits timezone.

S6 location/time; S14 NIST DST, 2026 dates; NIST FAQ, timezone table (E15).

Both October 7 and October 20 fall within 2026 daylight time. This timezone interpretation does not resolve the hearing date.

Use “Mountain” or “MDT,” not “MST.” Do not present timezone as an explicit quotation from the county notice.

COUNTY-016

“Data-center noise limits were discussed; a numeric campus-wide data-center noise standard is not established in the proposed amendments reviewed.”

Discussion; specific new limits are proposed requests. Existing solar rules differ.

S5 ~1:45:50–1:47:15; S4 Chs. 6–7; S7 §7.05.030(J); S8 §13.15.050(E), pp. 4–5 (E16).

General industrial noise can trigger SUP treatment; solar facilities covered by S8 already have numeric limits.

Do not say ‘no county noise limits.’ Suggested day/night limits, measuring locations and methods for the whole campus require a defined proposal and authority review.

COUNTY-017

“General commercial/industrial building setbacks already apply. P&Z recommended discretion for additional data-center setbacks; a uniform data-center residential buffer was not adopted at that meeting.”

Existing general rule; recommended discretion; fixed buffer discussed only.

S7 §§6.05.050/7.05.040, pp. 27/29; S4 pp. 29–30, 32, 35; S5 ~31:38–34:30 (E17).

Existing minimums are 30 feet from public roadway easements/rights-of-way and 10 feet from adjacent property lines. Solar has separate setbacks if applicable.

One-mile mapping/notice is not a one-mile exclusion zone. Existing setback application, waivers and greater project conditions need project plans.

COUNTY-018

“Lighting restrictions were discussed as potential SUP conditions. A uniform new data-center dark-sky requirement is not established in the amendments reviewed.”

Discussion; detailed campus standard is a proposed request.

S5 ~1:45:50–1:47:15; S4 Chs. 6–7; S8 §13.15.050(F), p. 5 (E18).

Solar rules separately limit lighting and allow full cutoff requirements when necessary; this is not a universal campus rule.

Do not label all lighting protection absent. Determine each component's governing standard and any final SUP conditions.

COUNTY-019

“Staff anticipate a Road Use Agreement if the project advances. Executed road and public-service funding terms remain unverified.”

Staff-described future requirement; broader funding package proposed.

S2/S3 p. 3 (E19); S9 response to item 3 (E20); S7 §1.05.070(A)(a), p. 9; S5 ~2:10:24–2:11:40.

Clerk says no agreements entered into as of September 18. Road example discussed concerned Laramie County, not an executed Platte agreement. Emergency Management reserved future review, not funded staffing approval.

Do not treat tax/job predictions as service funding. Pre-approval execution, fire/EMS/law-enforcement cost allocation and security are proposed requests; verify terms, timing, payer and legal basis.

COUNTY-020

“Applicant-funded independent studies were requested in public discussion. A dedicated independent-review escrow has not been established in the reviewed county records.”

Broad funding idea discussed; escrow design proposed.

S5 ~37:27–38:45 (E21); S12 Ch. II §§6–7, p. 5; S4 reviewed amendments.

Bylaws allow contracting for consultants and spending appropriated funds; they do not establish an applicant-funded escrow or the proposed team of specialists.

General consultant authority and a dedicated applicant-funded escrow are separate questions. Verify fee/reimbursement authority, independence and procurement terms before claiming the county can compel a particular escrow.

COUNTY-021

“Existing rules assign enforcement and provide penalties and court remedies. A Site Layer 4 inspection schedule, staffing plan and public compliance program remain unverified.”

Adopted general enforcement; operational details unresolved/proposed.

S7 §1.05.050(A)–(B), pp. 8–9; S11 §§18-5-204–206, pp. 121–122; S5 ~51:32–52:10 (E22).

Planning Officer monitors/processes regulations; County Attorney prosecutes as directed by BOCC. County text supplies notice-based daily fines and court relief.

Correct “no enforcement office/penalties” implications. Authority for administrative stop-work, automatic curtailment, cure periods and new penalties needs separate verification. Service/maintenance exceptions in §1.05.060(D) also need review.

COUNTY-022

“Recurring public water, gas and electricity reporting was requested, but is not established as a new data-center rule in the proposal reviewed.”

Discussed only; detailed publication cadence proposed.

S5 ~41:07–41:35 (E23); S4 data-center sections; S8 §13.15.070(O), p. 14.

Solar already has annual reporting to the Planning Office for covered facilities. That is not equivalent to publicly posted campus utility-use reporting.

Verify any SUP reporting conditions, public access/redaction rules, actual reports and responsible office. Do not claim no reporting rule exists anywhere.

COUNTY-023

“Zoning reversion is separate from cleanup funding. Current industrial rules allow BOCC to require cleanup/restoration bonding; project-specific security has not been verified.”

Existing discretionary rule; project bond unresolved; universal funded surety proposed.

S7 §7.05.050(B)(d), p. 30; S2 p. 4; S8 §§13.15.060(Q), 13.15.070(N), pp. 9–10/13–14 (E24).

Reversion changes land classification; it does not itself supply money. Solar financial assurance may be mandatory for a qualifying solar component.

Reversion and funded security are distinct protections. Verify scope, amount, instrument, posting, beneficiary, update cycle and draw/access rights. No proof of a posted Site Layer 4 bond.

COUNTY-024

“Existing industrial SUP continuation conditions apply to successors. A recorded Site Layer 4 development agreement has not been verified.”

Adopted general successor provision; project instrument unresolved; stronger recorded obligations proposed.

S7 §7.05.050(B)(a)–(d), p. 30, and §1.05.060(A), p. 9; S9 item 3; S8 pp. 10–11 (E25).

Existing successor language is not the same as an executed and recorded agreement securing all obligations. General SUP transferability exists unless permit specifies otherwise.

Existing successor provisions do not establish an executed project agreement. Seek executed agreement, recording, covered entities, assignment/change-of-control terms, collateral and enforcement rights.

COUNTY-025

“Expansion review is recommended. Phased approvals with defined off-ramps and security milestones remain proposed requests.”

Mixed: recommended expansion trigger; new phased-approval request.

S4 expansion bullets (E8); S2 applicant narrative p. 2; S8 §13.15.070(A), p. 11.

Applicant's multi-year buildout is a representation, not a binding staged approval system. Solar review of phasing does not establish a campus-wide off-ramp scheme.

Verify legal vehicle, sequencing, triggers and security before presenting as available or adopted. No formal phase gates located for this project.

COUNTY-026

“A whole-campus master plan/PUD was discussed for future study, but was not included in the recommended data-center amendments reviewed.”

Discussed only; mandatory campus-wide regime proposed.

S5 ~2:04:42–2:14:00 (E26); S4 relevant chapters; S1 preliminary plan condition.

Planner discussed possible future Chapter 11 and an SUP condition. Preliminary site-plan review is not a fully specified 5,344-acre PUD requirement.

‘Favorably discussed’ overstates a mixed discussion as endorsement. Use neutral wording. Do not import Laramie County tools or legal authority without separate verification.

COUNTY-027

“The filing identifies an applicant contact and landowner. Ultimate beneficial ownership, final end-user and operating entities remain questions for further verification.”

Applicant identity disclosures verified; broader disclosure requirement proposed; ultimate identities unresolved.

S13 pp. 1–2, 5–6 (E27); S2 p. 1; S8 §13.15.060(E), p. 7.

Form names Ian Marcus and Lazy V Six; narrative is prepared for Site Layer 4. These do not establish ultimate owners or a future end-user. Solar applications separately require operator contact information if applicable.

Avoid ‘no ownership disclosure’ and do not treat a registered agent/contact as beneficial owner. Obtain current ownership/control chain, land-control instruments and operator/end-user commitments.

COUNTY-028

“The August 26 minutes record Chair Shepard saying legal counsel advised he had no conflict and that he would participate. A County Attorney letter was referenced September 16; its contents remain unverified.”

Recorded statement verified; letter outstanding; misconduct not established.

S1 p. 1 conflicts paragraph (E28); S5 ~40:20–40:49; S2 attorney markup is a different record.

Signed minutes establish his stated position and participation, not an independent legal finding. Working transcript records an offer that a letter could be public.

Do not repeat the audience's family-relationship assertion as fact. Obtain letter/attachments, author/date, factual disclosures and any later recusal record. Do not claim concealment, unlawful voting or mandatory disqualification from the missing letter.

COUNTY-029

“The currently posted P&Z bylaws require a member with a conflict to withdraw from discussion and voting. Whether that rule required recusal here is unresolved.”

Posted adopted rule; application unresolved.

S12 Ch. II §11, p. 6 (E29); §10 also requires member votes/absence/nonvoting to be recorded.

Rule provides a procedure when a conflict exists; it does not itself prove that this member had one.

Confirm current bylaws and applicable legal standard using the actual facts and attorney letter. Separate August 26 project rezone from September 16 countywide rules.

COUNTY-030

“The county acknowledged the records request September 18 and supplied two planner reports. Additional communications retrieval awaits scope/cost resolution.”

Direct agency correspondence verified.

S9 opening and responses to items 2–4 (E20); Gmail thread search through September 20.

The old tracker saying acknowledgment pending is stale. Clerk warns communications likely exceed $50 and asks whether to pull other entities' communications.

No fee authorization or follow-up sent here. Obtain itemized scope/estimate if separately authorized. The response is not a completed item-by-item production or a denial of the conflict letter.

COUNTY-031

“County solar rules already include safeguards for covered solar facilities; the applicability and project compliance of each must be checked separately.”

Current general solar rules; project application unresolved.

S8 §§13.15.020/.030, .050(B/E/F), .060(L/Q), .070(N/O), pp. 1–5, 8–10, 13–14 (E30).

Rules include setbacks/noise, lighting, emergency planning, annual reports and financial assurance. They define commercial solar for wholesale/retail sales and exclude accessory solar meeting on-site needs.

Do not extend to a data center, gas plant, standalone battery, or all behind-the-meter solar by assumption. Do not use the old solar chapter in the omnibus proposal as current law.

COUNTY-032

“Existing industrial application rules require quantified proposed water needs and nearby well mapping. A binding campus water cap, independent baseline and bonded well mitigation require separate verification.”

Existing application requirements; baseline discussed; caps/bonded mitigation proposed or unresolved.

S7 §7.05.050(A)(e), pp. 29–30; S4 pp. 32–34; S5 ~1:51:47–1:55 (E31).

Requiring an estimate is not imposing a consumption/withdrawal ceiling or funding mitigation. A hearing speaker's statement about state water jurisdiction does not settle the county's authority to impose every proposed land-use condition.

Water quantities, state thresholds and exemption effects belong to state/water verification. Do not republish the module's “15 vs. 800 contradiction” or blanket county backfill claim on the September 20 review alone.

COUNTY-033

“Countywide rules govern the county's jurisdiction; proposed funding, operating and recorded conditions must use a legally supported vehicle.”

General statutory authority verified; particular proposals need analysis.

S11 §18-5-201(a), pp. 119–120; §18-5-202(c), p. 121; §§18-5-303/315/316; S7 §1.05.030(E), p. 8 (E6).

Land-use power in unincorporated areas is not unlimited fiscal, utility or state-permitting authority. Large-parcel subdivision exemptions do not themselves settle all zoning power.

Verify each obligation's statutory/ordinance/contract basis, applicability, timing and enforceability. Do not promise that local agreements replace every protection of full state siting review.

STATE-001

“SWCA told DEQ in February 2026 that Site Layer 4 intended to submit an Industrial Siting permit application that year.”

Verified applicant representation. S1 p. 1, February 18. Excerpt: “would like to submit.”

Intent is not receipt, completeness, or issuance. Locate actual submitted application and agency receipt before saying “applied.”

STATE-002

“The preserved September 16 agency response reports a March 11 all-divisions meeting, a May 13 pre-jurisdiction meeting, and no official jurisdictional meeting as of September 16.”

Preserved agency response; refresh unresolved. S3, first substantive paragraph. Excerpt: “has not had an official jurisdictional meeting.” S2 pp. 7-9 independently shows earlier scheduling discussions only.

This is the latest dated agency statement available here, not a fresh September 20 agency confirmation. Inspect original delivery and subsequent responses.

STATE-003

“No Site Layer 4 permit application, exemption request, jurisdictional determination, or final siting decision was identified in the records reviewed for this September 20 check.”

Bounded negative finding. S1-S3, G2, search log above. No supporting positive excerpt exists; the scope is the evidence.

Do not shorten to “no exemption exists” or “an exemption is pending.” Restricted request and incomplete live inventory prevent a comprehensive negative. Verify current project docket and written scope determination.

STATE-004

“Industrial zoning or a proposed industrial-park subdivision does not by itself establish eligibility for an Industrial Siting exemption.”

Verified law; project application unresolved. L35 § 119(a),(d), pp. 800-801: “existing industrial parks, as designated by local governments.” S5 P&Z pp. 3-4 / BOCC p. 4 refer to future subdivision review.

Need existing qualifying designation, facility classification, geography, and agency treatment of each component. County planner language is not a state determination. Obtain designation/plat and project-specific exemption analysis.

STATE-005

“BFC Power and Cheyenne Power Hub received exemption letters in November 2025. Those letters raise a procedural question for Site Layer 4; they do not decide its status.”

Verified comparison records; limited inference. S6 pp. 1-2, November 19: “meets permit exemption requirements.” S7 pp. 2-5 contains the applicant's § 119(a) and co-dependency arguments.

S6 cites § 119 generally; it does not expressly adopt every theory in S7. Do not transfer the exemption, infer intent to avoid review, or claim all gas generation is exempt. Seek Site Layer 4's own position and DEQ response.

STATE-006

“A waiver of permit-application requirements can still lead to an Industrial Siting permit and public hearing; it is different from an exemption.”

Verified law. L35 § 107(c)-(j), pp. 781-784; § 112(c). Excerpt: “issue an industrial siting permit.”

§ 107 includes notice, public meeting/hearing and findings; its hearing is not the same contested-case route as § 110(f). Identify the route before assessing lost participation.

STATE-007

“Exempt activities fall outside the Council's application review and jurisdiction; other applicable permitting requirements can remain.”

Verified law; conditional consequence. L35 § 119(d), pp. 800-801; §§ 109(a)(iii)-(v),(viii). Excerpt: “does not have jurisdiction over exempt activities.”

Partial exemption must be assessed activity by activity. Information duties survive; they are not full impact review. Establish the scope of any actual exemption and remaining permits.

STATE-008

“For a private project, this impact-assistance route generally depends on construction under an Industrial Siting permit and other statutory conditions.”

Verified law; conditional project consequence. L39 § 39-15-111(c)-(d), pp. 354-357: “under a permit issued pursuant to W.S. 35-12-106.” L18 § 509(a) excludes that funding provision for its county-referral route.

Fully exempt private construction without a qualifying permit lacks this route; partial permits need separate assessment. Federal/state construction has a separate branch. Eligibility, qualifying local taxes, unmitigated impacts, material-cost caps and award evidence must be checked.

STATE-009

“The permit process requires evidence and findings concerning financial ability to decommission and reclaim; that is not proof of a funded cleanup bond.”

Verified law. L35 §§ 107(b)(xiv),(h)(iii),(j)(iv), 109(a)(xxi), 113(a)(iv). Excerpt: “financial resources to decommission and reclaim.”

A review of resources, a binding duty, and posted realizable security are different facts. Obtain financial submissions, permit conditions and actual instrument before labeling cleanup “secured.”

STATE-010

“The Council can require an unfinished-project bond for local preparatory expenditures; this is distinct from reclamation security.”

Verified law. L35 § 113(e), pp. 795-796. Excerpt: “A permit may be issued conditioned.”

Discretionary; protects local preparatory expenditures if not completed, with an exception for circumstances beyond the holder's control. Do not call it a universal teardown bond. Check any actual condition and instrument.

STATE-011

“Wind/solar reclamation and financial-assurance provisions need a separate component-specific review, including requirements that can apply through county permitting.”

Verified statutory exception; applicability unresolved. L35 §§ 105(d)-(e),113(h); L18 §§ 501(a)(v)-(vi),502,503(a)(x),(b). Excerpt: “regardless of whether” the facility is referred or otherwise subject to the ISA.

County article includes commercial solar over 0.5 MW and its defined lands, including battery-storage lands. PSC-regulated public-utility exception and preemption need review. Do not infer all campus batteries or gas plant are covered. Current rules, capacity, ownership and component boundary are outstanding.

STATE-012

“Zoning reversion changes land-use status; it does not itself put cleanup money in escrow.”

Instrument distinction verified; final local terms unresolved in the September 20 review. S5 P&Z pp. 3-4 and BOCC p. 4 contain reversion language; BOCC p. 5 has blank final action fields.

No funding instrument is contained in those clauses. This does not prove that none exists elsewhere. Obtain signed final conditions, owner acceptance and any bond/escrow; coordinate adoption status with county evidence review.

STATE-013

“Use the current § 39-15-111 for impact-assistance analysis; the former separate use-tax provision was repealed effective July 1, 2026.”

Verified current law. L39 p. 405 and SF0079 enrolled §§ 3-5, pp. 36-37. G1 p. 6 cites the older paired statutes.

The April presentation is historically accurate context, not the current citation for the repealed section. Do not infer impact assistance itself was abolished. Current statutory citations control over older presentations.

WATER-001

“The June application anticipates less than 15 acre-feet annually; its scope and enforceability need clarification.”

Verified applicant representation. S4 § 2.6, PDF p. 34. Excerpt: “anticipates using less than 15 acre-feet of water annually.”

Not a measurement, permit finding or demonstrated binding cap. Verify water balance and adoption instrument.

WATER-002

“The February email assumes closed-loop cooling that will not exceed 800 acre-feet of state waters annually.”

Verified applicant representation. S1 p. 1. Excerpt: “will not exceed 800 acre-feet of state waters annually.”

Ceiling statement permits exactly 800 but does not prove required use equals 800. Verify demand, phase and included components.

WATER-003

“The two estimates remain unreconciled; reviewed records do not establish a single binding whole-project maximum.”

Verified comparison / bounded negative. S1, S4, S5 p. 2; quotations in WATER-001/002.

Later/lower does not prove formal replacement; household analogy does not define consumptive use. Obtain a signed reconciliation and complete governing instruments.

WATER-004

“The ISA-linked water review applies to permit or application-waiver applicants whose facility requires 800 or more acre-feet of Wyoming waters annually.”

Verified law. L35 § 108(a), p. 784. Excerpt: “eight hundred (800) or more.”

≥800 is correct; shorthand “if ≥800 AF” is incomplete. An upper estimate of 800 is not itself proof that the facility requires 800. Need actual facility demand and legal route.

WATER-005

“That review includes public notice and written comment; the State Engineer may hold a hearing.”

Verified law. L35 § 108(b)-(g), pp. 784-785. Excerpt: “may hold a public hearing.”

Review within 90 days after an acceptable analysis; preliminary opinion within five days of review completion; publication three consecutive weeks; comments within 20 days of last publication; final opinion within 30 days. These are relative statutory periods, not an announced Site Layer 4 deadline.

WATER-006

“A siting exemption does not itself exempt the project from otherwise applicable water-right and groundwater-permit requirements.”

Verified law / application unresolved. L41 §§ 930(a),931-933; § 104 for changes of use/place. Excerpt: “before commencing construction of any well.”

Different permit procedures and exceptions apply; control-area status is unverified. Purchased supply still needs source/right tracing. Inspect actual permits, supplier rights, transfer/change approvals and restrictions.

WATER-007

“Proposed safeguard: enforceable maximums for each phase and full buildout, with defined accounting and expansion review.”

Proposed ask; no adopted cap established. D1 evaluation Water bullets; S1/S4 estimates.

Annual maximums need scope, units, period, sources, meters, responsible entity and remedies. “Shall not exceed” can be enforceable in a valid instrument; the problem here is unverified legal incorporation and scope, not those words. Validate county/SEO roles before drafting conditions.

WATER-008

“Closed-loop cooling is an applicant representation. Dry cooling, reuse, or cooling-source restrictions would need explicit requirements and a feasibility review.”

Applicant representation plus proposed asks. S1 p. 1; S4 § 2.6; S5 p. 2; D1 Water bullet 2.

Closed-loop is not proof of zero makeup or no groundwater demand. No adopted dry-cooling/reclaimed-water requirement or fresh-groundwater/potable-water prohibition was established. Review design, heat rejection, supply rights and authority over particular sources.

WATER-009

“Proposed safeguard: a separately defined consumptive-use limit, supported by a complete water balance.”

Proposed ask. D1 Water bullet 2; S4 household analogy is not technical proof.

Withdrawal, delivered supply and consumption are not interchangeable. Do not subtract return flow without an accepted method and destination evidence. Obtain hydrologist/SEO accounting basis and applicable legal instrument.

WATER-010

“Proposed safeguard: developer-funded independent baseline studies before pumping or construction affects the measurements.”

Proposed ask; discussion lead. D1 Water bullets; M1 transcript lines 1227-1263. No adoption excerpt established.

Earlier site copy says no mandate adopted, but the September 20 review did not replay the vote or inspect a signed final ordinance. Confirm county disposition, study scope, seasonality, reference wells and funding authority.

WATER-011

“Proposed safeguard: a public well/aquifer monitoring program with specified locations, methods, frequency and reporting.”

Proposed ask; discussion lead. D1 Water bullets; M1 lines 1188-1295.

State water administration does not itself prove a public project-specific monitoring network exists; meeting opinions do not conclusively bar county-funded data collection. Verify existing permit monitoring, access agreements, privacy/security treatment and authority.

WATER-012

“Proposed safeguard: secured, developer-funded well mitigation with clear causation rules and prompt interim water supply.”

Proposed ask; no executed guarantee established. D1 bonded make-whole proposal. L41 § 933 states no entitlement to a fixed historic water level/pressure.

Do not equate every drawdown with a legal injury or promise automatic state-funded replacement. Baseline, attribution, covered wells, remedy limits, independent dispute process, beneficiaries, successor duties and drawable security need drafting and authority review.

WATER-013

“Proposed safeguard: measurable drought-response triggers and project curtailment commitments, consistent with state water administration.”

Proposed ask. D1 drought/residential-agricultural priority proposal; L41 §§ 915,916,936,937 govern relevant state control/priority/enforcement mechanisms.

A county contract cannot simply reprioritize nonparty water rights. Voluntary project limits may help but need supplier/operator participation, lawful enforcement and defined drought indicators. Verify permits/control-area status and counsel's authority analysis.

WATER-014

“Proposed safeguard: metered withdrawals and deliveries, reconciled reporting and audit access.”

Proposed ask; project implementation not established. D1 full-cost metering; M1 reporting lead lines 519-522. L41 § 930(a) requires application quantities in gpm and acre-feet/calendar year.

Permit application quantities do not establish installed meters, a public dashboard or a reporting cadence. Inspect actual permit conditions, meter specifications/calibration and data-access terms.

WATER-015

“Proposed safeguard: developer-funded water infrastructure and service costs, with an independently checked cost allocation.”

Proposed ask; no executed pricing or funding instrument established. D1 Water final bullet; S4 § 2.6 names a supplier but no contract.

“Full cost” and “no subsidy” require capital/operating/replacement/emergency cost definitions. County cannot promise to rewrite a utility's regulated rates or bind an absent supplier. Identify service provider, agreements, rate authority and funded security.

WATER-016

“General water-protection measures and project-specific quantity, monitoring and mitigation obligations must be tracked separately.”

Recommendation/discussion lead, not certified adoption. M1 line 829 onward describes ground/surface-water protection and containment language; D1 lists more extensive desired safeguards.

General protection text does not itself establish a numerical cap, baseline, public monitoring or mitigation bond. Retrieve clean recommended/adopted Chapter 7 text and project SUP conditions; carry the county evidence status rather than treating all items as adopted.

ENERGY-001

“FERC accepted Tri-State’s HILT and standard HILA on August 14, subject to a compliance correction, effective July 16, 2026.”

Adopted, subject to condition.

S1 ¶1 and ordering paragraphs A–B: “accepted, subject to condition, effective July 16, 2026.”

Effective date is established by the order, not merely requested in a later notice. Conditional acceptance is not rejection or an unapproved original proposal.

Check later docket orders before presenting this as the complete current procedural history.

ENERGY-002

“Tri-State filed the required revisions September 9; acceptance of those revisions has not been verified.”

Filing verified; subsequent disposition unresolved.

S2 pp. 1–3; S4a cover; S5 p. 58110. S2 requests “acceptance of this Compliance Filing.”

Filing occurred 26 calendar days after August 14, within the ordered 30 days. A filing receipt, generated tariff PDF, requested effective date, or press release is not a compliance acceptance order.

Obtain all ER26-1929 entries after September 9 through the next check date, without restricting subdocket or document class; read any disposition.

ENERGY-003

“The compliance filing concerns FERC review of non-conforming agreements when Basin imposes different terms.”

Required correction verified; filed response verified; conformity assessment is reviewer analysis.

S1 ¶¶80–82; S2 p. 3; S4 pp. 8–9. Added cross-reference: “such as pursuant to Section 3.6.”

§3.6 adds incorporation and filing of differing Basin terms; §5.3.1 connects that promise to the filing procedure. On its face this addresses the order. This is not a Commission finding accepting compliance.

Check any protest and acceptance order for FERC’s own determination.

ENERGY-004

“The published notice sets September 30, 2026, at 5 p.m. Eastern / 3 p.m. Mountain for ER26-1929-002.”

Notice text verified; unchanged-current-deadline check incomplete.

S5 p. 58110: “Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/30/26.” Instructions p. 58111.

On this date Eastern is EDT and Denver/Wyoming is MDT. This is a submission deadline, not a promised decision date. September 30 is still future as checked.

Resolve the two errata and any later notice before removing the currency caveat. If the deadline passes, replace the active call to action with actual outcome/status and available next step.

Later September 20 verification: Both erratum bodies were subsequently read and concern other dockets. The refreshed September 9–20 search found no changed Tri-State deadline or later acceptance order. Current qualified instructions and search boundary.

ENERGY-005

“Submit federal comments through eFiling; eComment is unavailable for this ER docket.”

Official filing route verified.

S6 “When Should I Use eFiling?” specifically includes ER; S7 eligible-prefix list omits ER. S6 guide p. 6 lists comments/protests as eFilable.

Do not offer the draft module’s short-comment eComment route. eTariff is the applicant’s tariff-submission format, not the public’s comment tool.

Follow the linked current eFiling guide when submitting; no submission or account workflow was performed here.

ENERGY-006

“A comment or protest does not make you a party. Intervention is a separate step.”

Procedural distinction verified.

S8 §385.211(a)(2), §385.214; S5 p. 58111: “intervention is necessary to become a party.”

Party status carries rights and service duties. Document-less intervention is for intervention, not substantive comments. Do not promise that the compliance notice reopens party status or objections to every issue decided in August.

A new participant should check the applicable notice and Rule 214 timeliness; use out-of-time motion requirements if applicable.

ENERGY-007

“Federal comments should address whether the revisions satisfy the August order; county land-use requests belong in the applicable county process.”

Scope verified from order and filing; suggested comment topics are guidance, not agency requirements.

S1 ¶81 requires language that “memorializes this commitment”; S2 pp. 1–3 describes limited conforming changes.

No direction to reopen the 45-MW trigger, establish local noise/water standards, approve Slater, or produce a community protection plan. Raising an unrelated demand does not enlarge this proceeding.

Tie any proposed federal comment to §3.6, §5.3.1, or ¶¶80–82; use the county participation guide for the separate local process.

ENERGY-008

“The general trigger is a load addition exceeding 45 MW at the Member Project Request, or forecast to exceed 45 MW within four years of that request.”

General tariff requirement verified.

S3 §2.13, PDF p. 5: “exceeds 45 MW”; §§1.1, 2.37, 3.1, pp. 4, 7.

“Exceeds” is not “45 MW or greater.” Program is available to Tri-State utility members with WESCs and applies to members serving/seeking covered loads; it is not a universal tariff for every large project.

Obtain Slater’s actual member request and grid-load forecast; do not substitute campus acreage, total generation, or nameplate capacity.

ENERGY-009

“Nearby related loads may be aggregated; permanently isolated loads are excluded by a specific test.”

General tariff requirement verified.

S3 §2.13 p. 5; §4.2 p. 8: “within 5 physical miles.”

Aggregation requires both an ownership/parent/control connection and an infrastructure/layout/character-of-service/end-use connection. Generally one Tri-State Delivery Point. Exclusion requires permanent physical disconnection, electrical isolation, and inability to affect a transmission or transmission-connected distribution system. On-site generation alone does not meet that test.

Obtain electrical one-line, connections, import/export and standby plans, and aggregation determination.

ENERGY-010

“Basin requirements can change the threshold, timing, and security for Eastern Interconnection members.”

General exception verified; added filing commitment submitted.

S3 §3.6 p. 8; S1 ¶¶79–82: Basin threshold “less than 45 MW.”

Do not present 45 MW or the standard security formula as universal without the interconnection/service qualification. The filing rule prevents treating unknown Basin terms as automatically approved.

Verify applicable delivery point and Basin East WPC service; obtain relevant Basin terms and non-conforming HILA if applicable. No Slater connection to this exception is established.

ENERGY-011

“The economic test evaluates effects on Tri-State’s wholesale member rate; it does not guarantee unchanged retail bills.”

General test verified; Slater result not established.

S3 §5.10.2 p. 12: “Tri-State’s Class A Rate in effect on the first day.” S1 ¶¶64–68.

Compares projected member-rate effects over the project term against the cycle-start Class A rate, considering required generation/transmission, system peak and energy, and minimum amounts. A passing projection is not immunity from every later rate change or local utility/public-service cost.

Obtain dated Slater evaluation, assumptions, load ramp, chosen minimums, and any later resource-economics reevaluation.

ENERGY-012

“Tri-State evaluates reliability, wholesale economics, environmental compliance, and transmission timing; an independent evaluator checks consistency with the tariff.”

General process verified; public/project results unverified.

S3 §§5.9–5.10.5 pp. 11–12; §§5.13–5.13.1 p. 13: “conducted consistently with the terms of this Tariff.”

Independent review is of Tri-State’s evaluation process/ranking, not an independently commissioned community impact study. Results go to utility members after completion, subject to confidentiality. Environmental criteria concern Tri-State goals/applicable requirements; they are not a project permit.

Seek evaluation notice (§5.7), independent review and any releasable summary. Label any proposed public load-study program as a separate ask.

ENERGY-013

“Participation requires customer and utility agreements, but their parties and signing sequence differ.”

General requirements verified; Slater execution unresolved.

S3 §§2.14, 2.24, 3.3, 5.3, 5.5.2, 5.6, pp. 5–10; Appendix A §3(A)–(C), p. 20. Package includes “an executed MCHIL” and “an executed HILA.”

HILA: Tri-State–utility member. MCHIL: utility member–retail customer. Member signs HILA with its package, generally within 30 Days after kickoff; Tri-State countersigns after the project passes evaluation. Do not infer both signatures precede evaluation from §5.5.2 alone. Member provides MCHIL and amendments to Tri-State and gives breach/termination notices.

Obtain both signed instruments, dates, exhibits, amendments and acceptance/evaluation notices. Do not ask whether “Slater signed a HILA” without identifying actual parties.

ENERGY-014

“Conforming HILAs are not individually filed at FERC; non-conforming HILAs have a filing requirement.”

Disclosure rule verified.

S3 §5.3.1 p. 9: “will not file such conforming HILAs at FERC.”

Non-conforming executed HILAs, or agreements FERC directs to be filed, must be filed within 60 Days after the project passes evaluation. That clock is not a 60-day extension of the September compliance deadline. No public HILA does not prove no agreement.

Determine execution/evaluation dates and conforming status before alleging an overdue or missing required filing. Search separate service-agreement dockets as well as ER26-1929.

ENERGY-015

“The facilities agreement allocates specified directly assigned interconnection and upgrade costs to the utility member, with an SPP Attachment AX exception.”

General requirement with express exceptions verified.

S3 §6.2 p. 13: “except for those Network Upgrades under SPP’s Attachment AX”; S1 ¶75.

Requires Facilities Construction Agreement (FCA) and appropriate security before execution of the Applicable OATT study agreement, unless otherwise mutually agreed. Aggregated members’ directly assigned costs are pro rata. This does not assign every conceivable grid cost to the developer, or erase the applicable OATT.

Obtain Slater FCA, cost estimates/studies, security and any timing agreement; identify excluded upgrades and their controlling OATT allocation.

ENERGY-016

“An executed facilities agreement must be filed at FERC within 15 Business Days of Tri-State receiving it; an unexecuted agreement is filed if agreement cannot be reached.”

FCA filing rule verified; Slater filing unresolved.

S3 §6.2 p. 13: “within 15 Business Days of receipt.”

Receipt, not an assumed project announcement date, triggers this deadline. This is a distinct and more useful public search target than assuming every HILA is public.

Search Tri-State/Wheatland service-agreement and facilities filings, project aliases and delivery-point identifiers; establish receipt and execution dates.

ENERGY-017

“Wholesale obligations fall on the utility member; the customer’s share depends on its separate contract.”

Jurisdiction and payer distinction verified.

S1 ¶¶66–68, 75: member “may elect to pass those costs directly to its HIL Customer.” S3 §5.6 p. 10.

FERC accepted this proposal because it does not dictate specific MCHIL retail terms. “Developer pays” may be a policy request or an executed-contract fact; it is not proved merely by this tariff.

Read MCHIL, retail rates, guarantees and cost-recovery provisions before identifying the documented Slater payer.

ENERGY-018

“HILA security uses a $1,869,600-per-Security-MW base, with specified adjustments and an Eastern Interconnection alternative.”

Formula verified; required/posted Slater amount unresolved.

S3 Appendix A §7(B), pp. 26–27, Exhibit A pp. 37–38; S1 ¶70 uses rounded “$1.869 million/MW.”

Uses defined demand and planning reserve margin; self-supply credit, resource-acquisition period, load ramp and stepdown affect amount. Basin East WPC projects use Basin Security. Do not multiply a reported campus MW figure and label the result Slater’s deposit.

Obtain completed HILA exhibits, demand and reserve assumptions, credits, security notices/calculation, instruments and beneficiary confirmation.

ENERGY-019

“Security can be qualifying credit support or cash, and is due at defined milestones.”

General timing/forms verified; Slater posting unresolved.

S3 Appendix A §§1, 4(B), 7(A)–(B), pp. 16–18, 22, 25–27: “Letter(s) of Credit,” “cash escrow,” “Guaranty.”

Standard schedule: 25% within 10 Days after Security Due Notice–Filing; full amount within 10 Days after Notice–Approval. Eastern: 100% within 10 Days after Notice–EI. Subsequent RFP amounts have their own 10-Day notice clock. Qualified issuers/guarantors and guaranty caps apply. “Cash paid up front” is not the universal rule.

Verify notice-trigger events, instruments, amounts, issuer/guarantor qualification, expiry/renewal and maintenance evidence. Keep HILA security distinct from FCA security.

ENERGY-020

“Minimum billing, security and termination obligations reduce utility exposure; they do not establish a community guarantee.”

General protections and limits verified.

S3 Appendix A §§2(A), 5, 7(F)–(I), 10(B)–(C), pp. 19, 22–24, 28–33; S1 ¶83. Excerpt: “but not damages arising out of the Facilities Construction Agreement.”

Minimum initial term is 15 years after Operation Date, bounded by WESC. Minimum demand/energy choices are 90%/75% or 75%/50% of the relevant load-ramp amounts. Termination draw/amount under §10(B) excludes FCA costs; shortfall can remain payable by member. §10(C) resource-economics termination has different consequences, including security release/no termination amount and no commencement. Do not claim all cancellations trigger identical forfeiture or that every risk is eliminated.

Review selected terms, resource-economics notices/buydown, FCA remedies and retail pass-through. Community funds need their own legal instrument and beneficiary.

ENERGY-021

“Energization is subject to the HILA’s Serve Ready Notice and other applicable obligations; the record does not establish Slater has satisfied them.”

General service prerequisite verified; project compliance unresolved.

S3 Appendix A §§3(D), 4(C), pp. 20, 22: “subject to Utility Member’s receipt of the Serve Ready Notice.”

Notice depends on resources and required facilities being available/constructed/tested/energized. Security requirements arise at their own milestones; §6.2 allows a mutual timing agreement. Avoid replacing those precise terms with an invented blanket rule that all cash security is due at county approval.

Obtain Serve Ready Notice, applicable contracts, due notices, security proof and any authorized timing variation. A stricter proposed local prerequisite requires separate authority review.

ENERGY-022

“Tariff review and agreement filing do not establish a public Slater reporting program.”

Disclosure limits verified.

S3 §§5.13.1, 7.1 p. 13; Appendix A §3 pp. 20–21. Excerpt: “commercially sensitive information.”

Independent-review results go to utility members; confidentiality agreements may protect data. Permitted disclosure to regulatory/judicial authorities is not automatic public disclosure of every customer contract or collateral instrument.

Seek releasable documents or certified public summaries; distinguish a requested transparency safeguard from adopted tariff disclosure.

ENERGY-023

“Wheatland REA participated in the tariff proceeding and described its rate protections to members.”

Participation and utility statement verified; service commitment not established.

S1 ¶20 and its Wyoming Cooperatives footnote, ¶29; S9 pp. 1–2. Letter title: “Rate Protection for Large Loads Served by Wheatland Rural Electric Association.”

Wheatland is among the Wyoming Cooperatives; Wheat Belt Public Power District is a different entity. The general member letter is not a signed Slater contract, rate guarantee, or collateral receipt.

Verify the serving member and project-specific contractual chain.

ENERGY-024

“The applicant describes on-site power for the data center and existing utilities for supporting facilities; actual grid service remains unverified.”

Applicant representation in agency records, not agency technical finding.

S10 p. 2 of both reports: “would generate the necessary power for the data center on-site.” S11 p. 1 lists gas, solar, BESS, data center and ancillary facilities.

These records neither prove isolation nor quantify utility imports, backup demand, exports or delivery points. They do not establish HILT applicability or exemption.

Obtain member request, phase-by-phase import/export/standby demand, electrical one-line, utility/interconnection agreements and identification of each delivery point.

ENERGY-025

“Slater’s contracts, evaluation, facility-cost responsibility and posted utility collateral are not established in the records reviewed here.”

Not established in defined reviewed records.

S1–S4a are framework/template records; S9–S11 contain no executed project instruments or posting confirmations reviewed here. No affirmative supporting excerpt exists for an absent-record finding.

This is bounded to the named materials, not a comprehensive negative public-record or eLibrary finding. A conforming HILA may legitimately be unfiled.

Retrieve the targeted evidence inventory below; do not publish “no agreement,” “no security” or “tariff violation” on this basis.

ENERGY-026

“Wholesale rate protection is distinct from community safeguards.”

Scope distinction verified; local/state safeguards unresolved here.

S1 ¶¶65–68; S3 §§5.10, 6.2, Appendix A §§7, 10. Security is in favor of Tri-State.

HILT addresses utility planning/financial exposure, not comprehensive water, noise, roads, fire/EMS, emissions, battery response or site reclamation funding. It neither proves nor disproves separate local/state safeguards.

Link separate county/state evidence. Label additional community conditions and developer-funded public oversight as proposed safeguards unless independently adopted and applicable.