These are requests for consideration, not adopted project requirements.
Start with the decision
What decisions are still ahead?
Industrial zoning was reportedly approved September 2. Final signed conditions remain unverified. Rezoning alone does not authorize construction of the full campus. Read the status evidence.
Remaining decision paths may include countywide land-use rules, future project-specific Special Use Permits (SUPs), development agreements, utility/service agreements, state review and the current federal utility filing.
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. A hearing on proposed countywide land-use rules, not a Site Layer 4 project permit hearing or a promised vote. The county links below identify issues to raise through countywide standards; they do not establish authority over every requested condition.
3 p.m. MDT / 5 p.m. EDT · ER26-1929-002. A filing deadline in Tri-State’s wholesale large-load tariff compliance proceeding. Its limited agreement-filing question is explained under P3; it does not decide local land use.
The county hearing date remains unresolved as of September 28, 2026; written-comment routes were rechecked that day; federal participation was checked September 21. Read the verification history and check official notices before participating. No future project SUP hearing or state hearing/comment date is established in this review.
Decision-path labels identify relevant processes, not verified authority to impose a request. Each proposal needs a legal basis, responsible parties, funding, measurable duties and an enforceable remedy; project applicability and timing must be established. A future SUP or agreement label does not mean a hearing is scheduled or an agreement signed. These are not finished legal instruments. Reporting intervals and triggers are proposed drafting choices, not current law. Binding instruments must specify numerical limits and terms before approval; this draft does not invent technical thresholds.
Raise water-budget standards in countywide rule comments. Any project cap would need an authorized SUP, water permit or supply agreement; state water administration and supplier terms remain separate.
Requested protection
Ask the developer and each water-system operator to provide one independently reviewed water budget before water-dependent approvals, covering construction, every phase, and full buildout. Define annual withdrawal, delivered supply and consumptive-use caps, peak demand, sources/rights, meters, and dry-year assumptions. Require a funded comparison of dry/air cooling, closed-loop makeup, and reuse, with feasible lawful cooling-source restrictions. Publish monthly metered totals and an annual audit. Secure attributable infrastructure/service costs before use. Set correction and lawful curtailment triggers for exceedances, including voluntary project-first drought reductions.
What the record currently shows
Existing application rules require water estimates and nearby-well mapping. Applicant water descriptions remain unreconciled; reviewed records do not establish a binding whole-campus cap, funded water-service terms or the project’s state-review trigger.
Who could require it / authority status
Possible participants are the county, State Engineer, water supplier and project operators, within their respective authority.
Authority not yet verified: county conditions cannot rewrite water-right priorities or supplier rates.
Raise baseline and well-protection standards in countywide rule comments. A detailed program would need authorized study, monitoring, access and mitigation agreements or applicable permit conditions.
Requested protection
Ask the developer to fund an independent hydrologist before pumping or construction changes baseline conditions. Specify seasonal baseline methods, agreed monitoring wells, measurements, and public reporting, with lawful access and privacy protections. Require the operator to fund monthly monitoring and publish quarterly results. Establish causation criteria, prompt interim supply, and appropriate lowering, deepening or replacement of affected wells. Post replenishable, drawable mitigation security before pumping; identify beneficiaries and an independent dispute process. Enforce missed reporting, payment or remedy duties through authorized conditions and contract remedies.
What the record currently shows
Baseline studies and monitoring were discussed. A detailed funded program, public monitoring duty and executed mitigation security are not established in the reviewed records.
Who could require it / authority status
The county, relevant regulator, developer and affected beneficiaries would need legally supported duties and agreements.
Authority not yet verified: access, fees, injury standards and curtailment powers require review; drawdown alone does not establish liability.
County / utility: County comments can request lawful public-service funding standards; project commitments would need service/development agreements. Utility costs and security have separate HILA, FCA and customer-contract milestones.
Federal filing — limited scope: In ER26-1929-002, comments concern whether §§3.6 and 5.3.1 implement the commitment to file non-conforming agreements containing differing Basin terms. This does not reopen the whole tariff or decide local land use, water or county service funding.
Requested protection
Ask the developer/customer, serving utilities, and affected service bodies to document who pays for attributable generation, connection/transmission/facilities, roads, water, fire/EMS, law enforcement, and emergency response. Seek executed lawful public-service agreements before development approval and security before exposure; utility obligations must also follow their actual tariff milestones. Require phase-specific budgets, annual cost true-ups, and remedies for shortfalls, lower load or closure. Verify separate HILA/FCA/customer instruments and beneficiaries. If incentives are proposed, require independent net-fiscal analysis, measurable escalating obligations and lawful secured clawbacks. Enforce through payment/default and authorized phase restrictions.
What the record currently shows
General tariff cost and security provisions exist, but project applicability, signed agreements and posted security remain unverified. Staff anticipate a road agreement and future service review; an executed public-service funding package is not established. The September compliance filing was submitted; acceptance remains unverified in the dated review.
Who could require it / authority status
County and service bodies, the customer, serving utility and Tri-State have different roles.
Authority not yet verified: taxation, rates, fees and cost allocation are not all county powers.
General utility provisions, not proof of project execution:Source E3 — clean tariff/HILA, HILT §§5.3–5.6 (PDF pp. 9–10) and §6.2 (p. 13); Appendix A HILA §7 (pp. 25–29) and §10 (pp. 30–33). These tariff provisions do not establish the proposed county fiscal or water obligations.
Raise independent-review funding in countywide rule comments. A county-administered review account would need a lawful fee or agreement and procurement process; compulsory escrow authority is not established.
Requested protection
Ask the developer to fund a county-administered review account before technical review begins, where authorized. The county should select independent hydrology, energy-economics, land-use, noise and air specialists under lawful procurement, with disclosed conflicts. Set a written work plan, budget, invoice audit, public findings and replenishment threshold. Require sufficient advance funds for the next review stage; unused balances should follow clear return rules. Address nonpayment with contractual recovery or a lawful pause of incomplete review, not an invented power to ignore statutory deadlines.
What the record currently shows
Applicant-funded studies were discussed, and the bylaws allow contracting for consultants. Neither establishes a dedicated developer-funded escrow. A public load/economic study is a proposed request, separate from confidential tariff-process review.
Who could require it / authority status
The proposed arrangement uses county-selected specialists and participating utilities where relevant; the legal basis for the funding mechanism remains to be confirmed.
Authority not yet verified: compulsory charges, escrow administration, procurement and review-pausing authority require confirmation.
Raise cleanup-security standards in countywide rule comments. Existing industrial rules allow discretionary cleanup bonding in an applicable SUP; broader secured agreements and state or solar requirements need separate applicability checks.
Requested protection
Ask the owners/operators to fund an independently costed closure plan before land disturbance, including unfinished phases and non-solar assets where legally available. Require drawable security naming the proper public beneficiary, with clear triggers, renewal, successor coverage and release only after verified work. Update costs annually for inflation, obtain a fresh independent estimate at least every five years and before expansion, and fund increases before exposure grows. Authorize lawful draws for default and recovery of uncovered costs.
What the record currently shows
Zoning reversion supplies no cleanup fund. Existing discretionary county bonding and conditional state/component provisions do not establish a posted whole-campus instrument. Final rezoning terms and actual project security remain unverified.
Who could require it / authority status
County commissioners, state decision-makers and bound owners/operators have different potential roles depending on the permit, component and instrument.
Authority not yet verified: reconcile county powers with state/component requirements and preemption; an allowed corporate assurance is not automatically cash in escrow.
Countywide standards may address operating limits and site-specific setbacks. The reviewed proposal includes associated generation/storage SUP review, additional setback discretion and containment detail; the full campus-wide operating and emergency package remains a request. Air and other component permits follow their applicable agency paths.
Requested protection
Ask each component operator to fund compliance with limits adopted before approval: day/night noise in dBA at defined boundary and residential locations, averaging/test methods, justified residential setbacks, shielded lighting/spill limits, generator testing/runtime logs, applicable emissions limits, stormwater controls, and diesel/oil/battery containment. Fund commissioning tests, periodic independent checks, and a battery thermal-runaway response plan, equipment and annual drills before energization. Secure response/cleanup obligations where authorized; use corrective deadlines, draws and lawful operating restrictions for violations.
What the record currently shows
General setbacks and separate covered-solar standards exist. Campus-wide numeric noise and lighting standards, a funded battery emergency plan and project air-permit limits are not established by the reviewed amendments or project records.
Who could require it / authority status
The county, DEQ Air Quality, other relevant agencies, operators and emergency responders have component-specific roles.
Authority not yet verified: numeric values need technical support; DEQ air authority, solar applicability, and local shutdown powers require component-specific review.
Raise disclosure and accountability standards in countywide rule comments. Existing industrial SUP successor provisions and a proposed recorded development agreement are distinct; stronger recorded duties require a legally supported agreement and recording.
Requested protection
Ask the applicant to disclose beneficial ownership/control, land rights, end-user, component operators and guarantors before the relevant approval, and update disclosures before transfer or change of control. Seek a recorded agreement, where legally available, assigning each duty to a signing party and preserving obligations and security through sale. Require written verification of successor assumption and replacement security before releasing an existing obligor. Publish releasable terms; request that government confidentiality agreements add no secrecy beyond lawful protections. Enforce disclosure/default clauses and authorized transfer conditions.
What the record currently shows
The applicant and landowner are identified, and general successor rules exist. Ultimate owners/operators, a recorded project agreement securing all duties and a relevant executed government confidentiality agreement remain unverified.
Who could require it / authority status
The county and signing owners, operators and counterparties would need to establish the reach of each permit or contractual obligation.
Authority not yet verified: recording, successor/insolvency effects, disclosure limits and remedies need review; a contract cannot bind a non-signing future operator simply by naming it.
Countywide rule comments can address recommended expansion review and state-document prerequisites. Project phase gates, reporting and inspections would need authorized SUP conditions or agreements. State jurisdiction and any full siting review must be established through the applicable state process.
Requested protection
Ask the county and relevant state bodies to publish a whole-campus review plan before piecemeal approvals, identifying component permits, cross-county dependencies, responsible inspectors, and state jurisdiction. Request full siting review where legally applicable and a formal local-government position explaining any remaining gaps. Require developer-funded authorized inspections, quarterly inspections, monthly utility-use reports and quarterly compliance summaries, with independent verification and secured correction costs. Condition later phases on defined capacity, safety, funding and permit milestones; identify cure periods, penalties, and lawful stop-work/curtailment remedies. Ask officials to resolve and document conflict/recusal procedures before affected participation.
What the record currently shows
General enforcement exists. Expansion review and a permit-or-exemption-letter prerequisite were recommended; phase gates and a campus reporting program remain proposed. A whole-campus plan was discussed for future study. The project’s state route and the referenced conflict letter remain unverified.
Who could require it / authority status
County officials, relevant state bodies and project operators have separate responsibilities. The county’s proposed state-document prerequisite does not require full state review in every case.
Authority not yet verified: a county agreement cannot recreate state hearing rights, impact-assistance eligibility, §108 opinions or water-right administration.