Water scope
Why do county and WYDEQ records describe less than 15 versus up to 800 acre-feet annually? What phases and uses does each number include?
Working record
Project notes
Research priorities, records requests, upcoming dates, and questions still being investigated.
Research progress and dated history
The research log preserves completed searches and historical milestones. Current hearing and filing instructions are maintained in Take action. No outcome is inferred merely because a date has passed.
September 20 — evidence review: Final county instruments, state jurisdiction and water questions, and project utility contracts/security remained unresolved in the reviewed evidence.
- Records requests opened
Requests were submitted to Platte County and WYDEQ. The tracker below records the outstanding materials.
- Initial DEQ production reviewed
Eight PDFs total 212 pages. Open the original files. Read the agency’s separate status response.
- Archive comparison and hearing notice checked
Cheyenne exemption records and Chugwater release inventories were added to the research. The county posted the October 7 hearing notice.
- FERC order and compliance package reviewed
The two additions address filing certain nonstandard agreements. Site Layer 4’s signed agreements, evaluation results, and posted security remain unconfirmed. Specific next checks.
- Historical county date-change observation
The September 23 check recorded a notice moving the countywide land-use-rule hearing from October 7 to October 20 at 1 p.m. MDT, with the same room and written-comment routes. This is a historical observation; the later conflict remains unresolved. Read the dated verification.
- County hearing date unresolved
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. Read the current date-conflict note.
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 →
Public-service funding: response and retrieval targets
In the September 18 reply to item 3 of the September 15 county records request, the clerk reported that no agreements had been entered into at that time. Both supplied planner reports anticipate a Road Use Agreement; the September 2 report also describes later emergency-management review. They do not provide an executed comprehensive funding schedule or security. The September report’s final decision fields are blank. (C2, C3; C9)
This is a dated finding about the county response, not proof that no private contract, draft, estimate or guarantee exists elsewhere or that no agreement was entered after September 18. Item 3 also requested drafts, term sheets, proposed conditions, cost estimates, financial assurances, bonds and guarantees; the reply does not separately resolve every category. The retrieval targets are attributable service costs, executed payment terms, security, shortfall/default remedies, and timing before exposure. See F01–F05 for the public scorecard and State oversight for the separate impact-assistance framework.
Source access and verification. Approved limited C2/C3 report excerpts and the C9 item-3 response excerpt appear below with provenance, qualifications and omission notices. These are research transcriptions, not county-hosted originals or complete reproductions. The earlier September 20 official-site search did not locate public originals for C2, C3 or C9; this is a bounded search result, not proof none exist. The original C9 reply and original sent request item 3 were inspected September 20. The full email, private identifiers, mailbox links and unrelated personal information are not included. Excerpt access does not resolve the outstanding funding or final-approval questions.
C2 — September 2 planner report — limited excerpt
Platte County Board of County Commissioners Report, application 26-26-Rezone-SL4, prepared for the September 2, 2026 meeting; supplied with the county clerk’s September 18 response. Excerpt from PDF page 3, Agency Comments. Staff report, not a signed final decision.
Limited report excerpt — research transcription:
Platte County Road and Bridge Department has no issues with the application to Rezone. If this project should move forward a Road Use Agreement will be required.
Platte County Emergency Management verbally stated they have no concerns with the Rezone Application, but any future applications would be subject to further review and comment.
These staff statements anticipate a road agreement and future emergency-management review. They do not establish an executed agreement, a fire/EMS or law-enforcement funding package, or posted financial security.
Omissions and access: Only the two relevant agency paragraphs are reproduced; source bullet hyphens were removed and line wrapping normalized. No words were redacted within those passages. Other agency comments, notification history and recommendations are omitted from this limited excerpt. The full report is not reproduced here; an official public download remains unverified. The retained report is titled “BOCC Meeting Packet 9.02.2026.pdf”: applicant/energy pp. 1–2; road/emergency p. 3; attorney-edited proposed conditions p. 4; blank final decision p. 5. Do not treat those proposals or blank fields as adopted conditions.
C3 — August 26 planner report — limited excerpt
Platte County Planning and Zoning Commission Report, application 26-26-Rezone-SL4, prepared for the August 26, 2026 meeting; supplied with the county clerk’s September 18 response. Excerpt from PDF page 3, Agency Comments. Staff recommendation; signed P&Z minutes control the actual motion.
Limited report excerpt — research transcription:
Platte County Road and Bridge Department has no issues with the application to Rezone. If this project should move forward a Road Use Agreement will be required.
This is a staff description of a future requirement, not evidence of an executed or secured Road Use Agreement. The emergency-management passage above is in C2, not C3.
Omissions and access: Line wrapping was normalized; no words were redacted within the quoted paragraph. Other comments, notification history and proposed conditions are omitted, not represented as nonexistent. The full report is not reproduced here; an official public download remains unverified. The retained report is titled “P Z Meeting Packet 8.26.2026.pdf”: description pp. 1–2; roads p. 3; proposed conditions pp. 3–4.
C9 — September 18 county response — limited item-3 excerpt
County clerk response dated September 18, 2026, replying to item 3 of the September 15 records request concerning Application 26-26-ReZone-SL4. The original received reply and original sent request, including exact item 3, were inspected September 20. Limited excerpt, not a complete email reproduction or county-hosted public copy.
Limited response excerpt — item 3:
For request number three, no agreements have been entered into at this time. As for the conditions, the planner reports are attached.
Request-scope summary:
The request sought existing records from January 1, 2025, through the date of the county’s search. Item 3 requested draft or final agreements, term sheets, proposed conditions, cost estimates, financial assurances, bonds and guarantees concerning roads/traffic; public services; water; utilities/ratepayer effects; environmental mitigation/decommissioning; and tax, incentive and community-benefit arrangements. This is a scope summary, not the complete request text.
Qualification:
This is the county clerk’s dated response within the scope of that request. The reply does not separately inventory every requested draft, term sheet, estimate, assurance, bond or guarantee. It does not establish the status of private utility contracts, records held elsewhere, or agreements made after September 18. The attached staff reports do not supply the final signed commissioner decision or establish executed funding commitments or posted security.
Omission notice:
Only the response to item 3 is reproduced. No words within that paragraph are redacted; line wrapping is normalized. Salutation and recipient name, email addresses, message identifiers, private retrieval link, transport headers, signatures, unrelated request items, fee/communications discussion and the rest of the quoted email chain are omitted. The request scope above is summarized, not reproduced in full.
Standing research framework
Research plan
The working sequence for gathering records, testing claims, and tracking the project.
-
Master timeline
Land option, company formation, county contacts, application submission, rule changes, hearings, votes, permit stages, and construction deadlines.
Current focus: fill the gaps before the March and May 2026 WYDEQ meetings and track every approaching county and state deadline. -
People-and-entities map
Site Layer 4, Granite Renewables, Ian Marcus, consultants, landowners, mineral holders, county officials, economic-development groups, utilities, gas suppliers, financiers, and prospective operators.
Current focus: confirm roles, ownership, addresses, overlapping representatives, and undisclosed counterparties from primary records. -
Claim-versus-evidence ledger
Every claim about jobs, taxes, water, power, noise, emissions, subsidies, traffic, and public benefits gets matched to its supporting document—or marked unsupported.
Current focus: reconcile the unreconciled water descriptions and obtain the studies behind the project’s economic and infrastructure claims. -
Cumulative-impact map
Site Layer 4, Chugwater Energy, transmission lines, pipelines, substations, and related shared infrastructure—viewed together rather than permit by permit.
Current focus: map common roads, water sources, airsheds, emergency services, utility corridors, ownership, and development phases. Open the first map layer →
Request tracker
| Record | Status | Next evidence needed |
|---|---|---|
| WYDEQ 26-866 | Eight preserved PDFs; September 16 status reproduction; original request access restricted at September 20 check. Agency’s later search/production status unconfirmed. | Original delivery message, subsequent correspondence, division-specific inventories, technical and meeting records, actual application/jurisdiction documents. The September 17 follow-up date is historical, not a live deadline. |
| County application 26-26-ReZone-SL4 | September 18 acknowledgment and two planner reports; final signed action and owner acceptance unverified. | Complete adopted decision/conditions, acceptance/recording, missing packet materials, conflict letter and any actual SUP/development agreement. Communications scope/fee issue remains unresolved; no additional work or payment authorized by this draft. |
| September 16 P&Z rules | Working transcript compared with posted proposal; signed minutes outstanding. | Clean certified recommendation, signed vote record and commissioner outcome. Use Take action for hearing logistics. |
| Tri-State ER26-1929 | September 20 search of September 9–20 filings, all subdockets, returned the filing and notice only. Both erratum bodies read; they concern other dockets. Later acceptance not established. | Refresh for later notices/orders before filing or publication; verify project applicability, agreements, evaluations, cost allocation and actual collateral. |
| BFC/Cheyenne 26-329 | Signed comparison exemption letters and selected supporting records reviewed. | Retain as comparison only; obtain Site Layer 4’s own jurisdiction instruments. |
| Chugwater 26-803 / 26-135 | Training scheduling records read; agency-comment inventory is a separate research lead. | Actual construction/schedule decision and substantive agency comments if pursued in a later assignment. |
Historical requester-reported status — separate matter: On September 17 the requester reported that Horton’s Corner / Chug-Chug Gas records would be mailed; receipt was unconfirmed and a September 24 follow-up was planned. This historical entry has not been refreshed and creates no current duty or automation.
Conflict-letter evidence still needed
The signed August 26 minutes record Chair Shepard’s statement that counsel advised he had no conflict. September 16 discussion referenced a County Attorney letter. Obtain the letter and attachments, the disclosed facts, and the applicable meeting/recusal record before drawing a conclusion about whether participation complied with the rules. A missing letter does not establish misconduct. (C1; C5; C12; COUNTY-028–029)
Optional draft records-request text
The county identifies the Clerk as its public-records recipient and accepts written requests through its form, email or mail. Official request instructions checked September 21, 2026. Tailor the example below to the records sought; no request is submitted by this page.
Example records request — not a submitted request
Please provide an electronic copy of the County Attorney’s letter concerning Chair Marty Shepard’s potential conflict of interest in the Site Layer 4 matter, referenced during the September 16, 2026 Planning & Zoning meeting at approximately 40:25 in the recording. Please include any attachments to that letter. If any portion is withheld, please identify the basis for withholding and provide any releasable portions. Please advise me of any proposed fee before incurring charges.
Meeting follow-up
Remaining county records are the final signed September 2 action and acceptance, signed September 16 minutes and clean recommendation, actual commissioner disposition, and any project SUP/site-plan/phase/security documents. Current logistics live in Take action. The scorecard is the canonical list of safeguards; this log tracks the documents needed to resolve them.
Technical research targets
Air impacts
What are the generation capacity, fuel use, emissions inventory, PSD pollutants, modeling assumptions, and anticipated permit limits?
Full buildout
What facilities, phases, acreage, schedules, costs, and ownership entities make up the complete Platte–Goshen campus?
Roads and services
What will the traffic study require, who pays for road work, and how will fire, EMS, law enforcement, and emergency planning be funded?
County safeguards
Project-specific inspection, funding and remedy details remain unresolved despite existing general enforcement rules.
State jurisdiction
If Site Layer 4 seeks an exemption, which facilities, funding opportunities, and safeguards could be affected? Questions to settle in advance.
Final rule text
How does the posted amendment compare with the September 16 motions, and what do signed minutes and a final commissioner action establish?
Missing materials
Where are the March 11 and May 13 presentations, attendance lists, notes, chats, recordings, checklists, and follow-up communications?
State route: evidence still needed
The September 20 review did not establish Site Layer 4’s current permit/exemption/jurisdiction file; request access and live inventory were incomplete. This is the state-status boundary for this page. [STATE-003]
Resolve the covered activities, legal basis/designation, remaining permits, funding eligibility, financial findings and security, water-review trigger, and lawful local alternatives. For the substantive explanation and limits of replacement commitments, see State oversight. Do not infer the route from another project’s exemption or the county’s preliminary subdivision discussion.
Energy and project research questions
The utility research targets are service/delivery point and grid demand, signed HILA and MCHIL, actual FCA costs and filing, evaluation results, due notices and valid collateral, Serve Ready Notice, and lawful public disclosure. None is proved by the template. The September 18 search and initial September 20 review’s access failures remain historical observations. The September 20 follow-up search of September 9–20 ER26-1929 filings, all subdockets, returned only the filing and notice; no later acceptance order appeared. Both erratum bodies were read and concern Agilitas and RWE complaint dockets, not a changed Tri-State deadline. See E01–E11 for status and Take action for instructions and the exact search boundary. (EERR1, EERR2)
Public archive review · September 17
Supporting archive research
Background records for the Site Layer 4 exemption questions. Decisions about other facilities do not establish Site Layer 4’s eligibility or outcome.
Two power facilities received exemption letters.
WYDEQ request 26-329 contains 14 released documents about BFC Power and Cheyenne Power Hub. The two November 19, 2025 letters signed by DEQ Director Todd Parfitt state that each facility meets Industrial Siting permit-exemption requirements under § 35-12-119.
The letters cite the statute generally; a separate subsection-specific agency analysis was not supplied in the reviewed letters.
Read the signed letters · 3-page PDFThe supporting argument relied on industrial-park status.
In its November 12 submission, the developer argued that the data center and its co-dependent power facilities qualified under § 35-12-119(a), citing the county’s designation of Switchgrass Industrial Park. An earlier email asked whether a formal determination was necessary; the agency proposed a meeting.
Chugwater scheduling records — background only
Request 26-803 includes invitations and correspondence moving compliance training from August 31 to September 3, 2026, at 9 a.m. These records document scheduling, not construction commencement or approval of a schedule amendment. Read the correspondence PDF, the original request, and access to all three released documents in the research inventory. R1
Chugwater agency comments offer a next comparison.
Request 26-135 lists 53 released documents, including State Engineer, Public Service Commission, wildlife, and other agency comments and responses.
The first 25 inventory entries were checked; their contents have not yet been analyzed here. Review them for water, utility, and service requirements that may inform the cumulative-impact investigation.
An issued-permit list does not answer the pending-application question.
The spreadsheet released under 26-603 has 13 issued PSD permits. It lists Cheyenne Power Hub permit P0040709, facility F032395, issued July 2, 2026. It does not list Site Layer 4 or Granite Renewables.
That absence does not rule out a pending application or later action. The companion Open Air guide is general search guidance. Air permitting and Industrial Siting jurisdiction are separate processes.
Historical review scope (September 17): targeted public-archive searches, selected document contents, and release inventories. See the state-route research target on this page for the September 20 status boundary.
Comparison source access
- Nearby project · primary records Chugwater compliance training 3 PDFs · scheduling correspondence reviewed
- Nearby project · review lead Chugwater agency comments 53 released documents · contents not yet analyzed
- Air-permitting reference Issued PSD permits + Open Air guide July 9, 2026 release · no new Site Layer 4 permit identified