Imperial CountyData Center Advisory CommitteeSearch
Committee working material

Imperial County Data Center Advisory Committee: Section 3 Research Draft

September 18, 2026

This report is delivered as a set of working papers so the committee can use each piece independently:

  1. 20 MW Scale-and-Siting Framework - load tiers, pass/fail gates, six-area desktop screen, cost and unverified-claim cautions.
  2. Existing Rules and Regulatory Gap - what the General Plan and Title 9 currently do, including the existing M-1/M-2/M-3 data-center provisions.
  3. Planning Tools, Compatibility, and Projects in Process - ordinance/overlay/CUP/specific-plan architecture, sensitive-use methods, California transition and vesting framework.
  4. Draft Findings and Recommendations - Board-package outline with implementation actions and remaining evidence.
  5. Committee Working Guide - practical sequence for the committee to move through its charge.
  6. IID Data Request - a draft request for the system facts that cannot be inferred from public maps.

Central conclusion

The County should not choose between a ban and unrestricted data-center development. It should define a lawful path for right-sized projects and require larger proposals to prove power, water, compatibility and financial readiness. IID’s 20 MW tariff threshold supplies a practical large-load planning unit, but it does not establish capacity at any site.

Evidence standards

Imperial County 20 MW Scale-and-Siting Framework

Desktop working paper | September 18, 2026

The policy choice

Imperial County should regulate projects by the load IID can actually evaluate and serve, not by a hypothetical 300-330 MW campus. IID’s current Large Load Tariff applies to a customer requesting at least 20 MW with an 80% minimum load factor. That makes 20 MW a defensible planning unit, but not a promise of available capacity at any site. Every candidate still requires an IID system-impact, facilities, power-supply and interconnection determination.

Proposed scale framework

Tier Load County path Required showing
1. Standard / fast path <5 MW Existing industrial process; administrative review where zoning allows Utility will-serve; parcel control; ordinary water, noise, fire and generator compliance; no phased scheme designed to evade aggregation
2. Intermediate 5 to <20 MW Staff-level infrastructure screen, then conditional use review IID pre-application letter; feeder/substation screen; annual and peak water budget; sewer plan; generator/BESS noise and air analysis; community separation; construction phasing
3. Large-load planning unit 20 to <50 MW Full large-load track coordinated with IID IID tariff compliance; applicant-funded studies/upgrades and financial security; firm deliverable capacity and energy; curtailment terms; redundant service plan; independent water-budget review; emergency-power operating limits; heat/noise/fire plan; enforceable milestones
4. Campus / system-scale 50 MW+ or aggregated common-control phases Specific plan or development agreement plus full environmental and cumulative review Everything above, plus transmission and generation plan, portfolio/resource adequacy, cumulative water/air/land impacts, proof of capital, phased approvals with expiration, and no entitlement beyond demonstrated power

Anti-evasion rule: aggregate adjacent parcels, affiliates, shared substations and phased buildings under common control. A 100 MW campus is not five unrelated 20 MW projects.

Pass/fail gates for a 20 MW site

  1. Power: IID identifies a feasible point of interconnection, deliverable MW and MWh, upgrade scope, schedule, curtailment priority and applicant cost. Line proximity alone does not pass.
  2. Water: independently reconciled potable, process/cooling and fire-flow budgets. Prefer air or closed-loop cooling; identify the actual water purveyor and legally available supply.
  3. Land compatibility: industrial entitlement or a clear entitlement path; adequate acreage, drainage and road access; separation from homes, schools, hospitals and incompatible agricultural operations.
  4. Backup generation: disclose MW, fuel, annual test/run hours, emissions, noise and fuel storage. Large engine farms near housing or light-industrial neighbors fail even if emergency-only on paper.
  5. Developer proof: parcel control, financing evidence, equipment deposits, schedule, and security for IID/county costs before public money or capacity is reserved.
  6. Verification after opening: revenue-grade interval meter, annual water and generator-hour reporting, noise/air testing, permit audit rights, enforceable load ramp, decommissioning security and automatic expiration for missed milestones.

First-pass six-site screen

These are study areas, not recommended parcels and not findings of available 20 MW service.

Gateway of the Americas, east Calexico port

Why screen it
1,775-acre planned industrial area; IID completed a Gateway Substation expansion in 2026 for industrial/commercial growth
Land/use and compatibility
Large industrial setting and border/logistics access; map buffers to Calexico housing, port/security uses and Alamo River
Water
Confirm service capacity and industrial allocation; older plan is not proof of present water
Generation implication
Industrial setting is better than a residential edge, but engine count/noise/air still need a parcel buffer
First fatal-flaw question
Can IID deliver a firm 20 MW block after committed Gateway growth, and can the local water/sewer systems serve it?

Imperial Industrial Park / Imperial Substation area

Why screen it
121 acres marketed as industrial-zoned; historical 92-kV Imperial Substation record
Land/use and compatibility
Reuse of a former cotton-processing/industrial site is preferable to greenfield; verify parcel ownership, active tenants, nearest residences and airport constraints
Water
Identify current purveyor, fire flow and cooling supply; marketing page gives no capacity proof
Generation implication
Existing industrial use may reduce conflict, but on-site generation should be sited at the interior with modeled noise/air
First fatal-flaw question
Is there a parcel with both control and a feasible 20 MW IID interconnection without displacing productive industry?

Luckey Ranch / Brawley industrial area

Why screen it
Historical 45.24-acre M-1/light-industrial plan; Brawley has a 92-kV substation/line corridor
Land/use and compatibility
Industrial designation and acreage are promising; screen distance to Brawley homes, airport, rail and agricultural operations
Water
Confirm City of Brawley water/wastewater capacity and drought/fire-flow constraints
Generation implication
Avoid the city edge for a full engine yard; BESS plus limited emergency generation may fit better
First fatal-flaw question
Which parcel is close enough electrically but far enough from homes, and what headroom exists at Brawley?

Mesquite Lake / Keystone Specific Plan

Why screen it
About 5,100 acres planned for light, medium and heavy industry, offering room for buffers
Land/use and compatibility
Strong land-use concept and scale; however the plan itself says major infrastructure is limited and needs substations, water/sewer, roads and drainage
Water
A reclamation facility was planned at 2.5 MGD initial/15 MGD ultimate, but current existence/capacity is unverified
Generation implication
Large buffers make backup generation more manageable, but infrastructure creation could erase the site’s advantage
First fatal-flaw question
Has the water/reclamation and electric infrastructure actually been built, and who pays to bring 20 MW to a parcel?

Holtville industrial/substation area

Why screen it
Existing Holtville substation and a permitted 100-MW BESS show a meaningful grid node
Land/use and compatibility
Vacant/light-industrial land exists, but the BESS record and local reporting identify nearby homes and a high school. Use only parcels with a demonstrable buffer
Water
Confirm city water/sewer and fire flow; no desktop capacity proof
Generation implication
This is the clearest warning site: a large generator yard near homes/school should fail compatibility even if the grid works
First fatal-flaw question
Is there a different parcel on the node with adequate separation, or should Holtville be excluded?

Niland/Calipatria geothermal-generation corridor

Why screen it
Existing Niland generation and project records showing a nearby IID 230-kV corridor make this a logical grid-oriented screen
Land/use and compatibility
Rural/energy landscape can provide buffers; evaluate Salton Sea, geothermal, habitat, flood, seismic, air-quality and environmental-justice constraints
Water
Potable/process supply is likely the hard gate; test reclaimed/non-potable options and avoid open-loop cooling
Generation implication
Better physical separation for engines, but cumulative air burden and disadvantaged-community impacts matter
First fatal-flaw question
Can IID identify deliverable load at a suitable node, and is there a lawful low-water cooling/fire plan?

Control case: the Aten/Clark corridor

The Aten/Clark proposed-campus corridor is electrically relevant because the applicant’s study identifies IID’s 230-kV S line and 92-kV R line. It is treated here as a control case, not as a presumed-suitable site: an open question for the committee is whether a smaller 20 MW phase on a better-buffered parcel resolves the land-use conflict. Applicant-hosted feasibility material is not an IID will-serve commitment.

Claims awaiting verification

The following circulating claims are unverified and should be treated as open questions, not established facts:

Proposed committee action

Direct staff and IID to return with a 20 MW suitability atlas: six to ten study areas, parcel-level buffers, existing zoning, distance to 92/161/230-kV facilities, water purveyor and capacity, flood/airport/habitat constraints, and IID’s red/yellow/green feasibility status. Publish the methodology, not customer-confidential system details. The atlas should show where a right-sized project could work and what evidence any applicant must provide before the County spends time on a proposal.

Sources

Section 3 Working Paper 2: Existing Rules and the Regulatory Gap

Imperial County Data Center Advisory Committee | September 18, 2026

Bottom line

Imperial County does not start from a blank page. Title 9 expressly lists a “data center (within enclosed building)” as a permitted use in M-1, lists “data centers” as a permitted use in M-2, and carries M-2 permitted uses into M-3. A “data center yard” requires a conditional use permit in M-1. This is the central gap: the ordinance identifies the use, but does not scale review to electric load, water, backup generation, heat, operating noise, financial readiness or proximity to sensitive uses. A small enclosed facility and a 20 MW or 300 MW campus can begin in the same use category even though their infrastructure and community effects are different in kind.

What the current framework does

General Plan

The 2015 Land Use Element: - directs orderly development with adequate public facilities; - allows zoning limits where facilities are inadequate or development would impair agriculture or cause leapfrog growth; - identifies specific plans as the tool for large industrial parks or areas needing study when conventional zoning is inadequate; - requires specific plans to address land uses and the location/intensity of water, sewer, drainage, energy and other facilities; - asks whether a specific plan pays its public-service costs, creates permanent jobs, reduces environmental and compatibility effects, adds distinct local opportunity and advances an unmet General Plan goal.

Title 9 land-use ordinance

The gaps the committee should close

  1. No definition. The located provisions do not define data center, data-center yard, campus, IT load, utility load, accessory generation, or common-control/aggregated phases.
  2. No load tiers. Review does not change at 5, 20 or 50 MW even though IID’s new tariff begins at 20 MW and 80% load factor.
  3. By-right mismatch. A use with regional power and water consequences may be permitted in M-1/M-2 without a project-specific CUP solely because the servers are enclosed.
  4. No infrastructure finding. Title 9 does not expressly require IID confirmation of deliverable capacity, upgrade cost, schedule, power supply or curtailment before land-use approval.
  5. No water standard. There is no data-center water budget, cooling-method preference, independent reconciliation, reclaimed-water analysis or enforceable operating cap.
  6. No sensitive-use rule. General noise limits help, but there is no setback or performance protocol for homes, schools, hospitals, disadvantaged communities, agricultural workers or habitat.
  7. Generator ambiguity. A yard or power plant can trigger a CUP, but the ordinance does not clearly classify hundreds of emergency generators, distinguish testing from routine operation, or cap cumulative run hours.
  8. No heat, light or 24-hour operating standards. The ordinance lacks data-center-specific heat-rejection, glare, security lighting and nighttime maintenance rules.
  9. No anti-segmentation rule. Nothing located aggregates adjacent parcels, affiliates, shared substations or phased buildings.
  10. No proof-of-readiness or expiration system. There are no data-center-specific requirements for parcel control, financing, equipment deposits, IID security, load-ramp milestones or decommissioning security.
  11. No operating verification. No revenue-grade interval-load report, annual water report, generator log, noise confirmation or audit right is tied to the use listing.
  12. No mapped suitability overlay. The rules identify zones, not parcels where power, water, roads, drainage and separation align.

Pending County Counsel review, amend Title 9 so that: - only genuinely small enclosed facilities below a stated threshold remain administrative/by right; - 5 to under 20 MW requires an infrastructure screen and CUP; - 20 MW and above requires the full IID large-load record, independent water review and enhanced CUP findings; - 50 MW and above, or an aggregated campus, requires a specific plan or development agreement and cumulative review; - all phases under common ownership/control, a common entitlement plan or shared substation are aggregated; - approval reserves no electric capacity and becomes effective only when stated IID and water conditions are met; - permit conditions include operating reports, audit rights, milestone expiration and decommissioning security.

Primary sources

Verification note: This audit is based on the County’s posted General Plan and Title 9 PDFs posted as of September 18, 2026. County staff and County Counsel should confirm whether later codified amendments, uncodified urgency measures, policy memoranda or project-specific interpretations alter these provisions.

Section 3 Working Paper 3: Planning Tools, Compatibility, and Projects in Process

Draft for committee and County Counsel review | September 18, 2026

Use more than one tool. A countywide ordinance should define and regulate the use; a suitability overlay should identify preferred areas; a CUP should test site-specific impacts; and a specific plan or development agreement should be reserved for a campus whose size or infrastructure demands exceed conventional zoning.

Project form Primary tool Why
Small enclosed facility below 5 MW Administrative/by-right in selected industrial zones Low enough for objective standards if no unusual generation, water or neighborhood impact
5 to under 20 MW CUP plus infrastructure checklist Site-specific power, water, noise, fire and neighbor effects deserve findings
20 to under 50 MW Enhanced CUP within a mapped suitability overlay Matches IID’s large-load process and keeps location tied to infrastructure and buffers
50 MW+ or aggregated campus Specific plan and, if warranted, development agreement Requires coordinated land use, energy, water, roads, fiscal terms, phasing and security

The County’s own Land Use Element supports specific plans where conventional zoning is inadequate for a large industrial park or area needing further study. It also requires the plan to address the location and intensity of water, sewer, drainage, energy and other facilities and to demonstrate public benefit.

Compatibility: use buffers plus performance standards

A fixed setback alone cannot manage low-frequency fan noise, nighttime testing, exhaust, plume behavior or cumulative generator operation. A pure performance standard can also fail if it lets a project place industrial machinery against a home and promise later mitigation. Use both.

  1. Residential, schools, hospitals and care facilities: require discretionary review whenever a data-center building, substation, cooling plant, BESS or generator yard lies within a defined study radius. Establish final distances only after acoustic/air/fire analysis. As a starting policy direction, keep generator yards and major substations out of direct adjacency and require a larger buffer than for the enclosed server building.
  2. Noise: retain Title 9’s receiving-zone limits, but add data-center methods: pre-project ambient baseline; octave-band and low-frequency analysis; tonal and impulsive penalties; normal, full-cooling, generator-test and credible emergency modes; measurement at the receiving property and inside the nearest sensitive receptor where warranted; post-opening verification.
  3. Generators: distinguish emergency outage operation from commissioning, testing and demand-response/routine generation. Cap and report non-emergency hours; require synchronized-test analysis rather than one-engine assumptions; locate fuel and exhaust away from sensitive receptors.
  4. Air and environmental justice: require cumulative analysis of diesel/gas engines, construction, truck trips and nearby industrial sources. Give special attention to communities already bearing high pollution loads. Do not assume “emergency” equipment has no operating impact.
  5. Water and heat: require annual and peak-day demand, cooling mode, cycles of concentration, blowdown destination, fire flow and drought/emergency plan. Air or closed-loop cooling should receive a preference, not an automatic pass, because energy and heat effects remain.
  6. Agriculture: avoid fragmenting productive farmland, impairing drains/canals, creating incompatible glare/noise, or using an agricultural zone merely because acreage is cheap.
  7. Airport, flood, habitat and seismic constraints: map these as exclusions or conditional layers before identifying a preferred site.
  8. Building and site design: screen mechanical equipment; control lighting at property lines; place noisy plant at the interior; preserve emergency access; require landscape/buffer survival standards suited to desert conditions.

How to handle projects already in process

There is no single “grandfathered” category. County Counsel should create a project-by-project entitlement table.

Questions for each project

Transition recommendation

  1. Apply new rules prospectively to new applications.
  2. Apply them to pending applications to the extent legally allowed, based on the entitlement table rather than a blanket label.
  3. Honor a demonstrated vested right only to its documented scope.
  4. Preserve generally applicable building, fire, health, nuisance and operating authority where the law allows.
  5. Offer a defined transition process: applicant submits its claimed vesting instruments; County Counsel issues a written scope determination; staff identifies which new standards remain applicable.
  6. Do not let a lot merger, pre-application discussion, feasibility study or utility inquiry stand in for a land-use entitlement.

Sources

Legal caveat: This is a policy research paper, not a legal opinion. County Counsel should determine the effect of any existing approval or claimed vested right and review all transition language.

Draft Findings and Recommendations Structure

Imperial County Data Center Advisory Committee | Board package outline

Executive finding

Imperial County’s current code allows enclosed data centers in industrial zones but does not scale review to electric demand or address the combined infrastructure and compatibility effects of modern high-load campuses. The County should replace a binary allow/deny debate with a tiered, evidence-based system that identifies what fits, where it fits and what must be proven before approval.

Proposed findings

Finding 1 - The use already exists in Title 9

Title 9 permits an enclosed data center in M-1, permits data centers in M-2, and carries M-2 uses into M-3. A data-center yard requires a CUP in M-1.

Recommendation: retain a path for suitable projects but define the use, campus, yard, accessory generation, utility versus IT load and common-control phases.

Finding 2 - Current review is not proportional to scale

The located code does not distinguish a small server facility from a 20 MW or 300 MW campus.

Recommendation: adopt load tiers: administrative under 5 MW in selected industrial settings; CUP and infrastructure screen at 5-under 20 MW; enhanced CUP and IID record at 20-under 50 MW; specific plan/development agreement at 50 MW+ or for an aggregated campus.

Finding 3 - Twenty MW is a useful planning unit, not available capacity

IID’s 2026 tariff applies at 20 MW or more and an 80% minimum load factor, but no public map proves a 20 MW block is deliverable at a named parcel.

Recommendation: require IID confirmation of point of interconnection, deliverable MW/MWh, upgrade cost, power supply, schedule and curtailment before land-use approval becomes effective.

Finding 4 - Location should follow infrastructure and compatibility

Industrial zoning alone does not establish adequate power, water, fire flow, roads, drainage or separation from sensitive uses.

Recommendation: adopt a suitability overlay/atlas using parcel, zoning, 92/161/230-kV proximity, water-purveyor, flood, airport, habitat, agriculture, housing, school and environmental-justice layers. Treat transmission proximity only as a screen.

Finding 5 - Water claims need a common accounting method

Cooling technology, peak-day demand, annual use, blowdown, fire flow and drought operation can produce very different impacts.

Recommendation: require an independently reviewed water budget, named legal supplier, peak/annual volumes, cooling mode, fire flow, blowdown disposal and enforceable cap. Prefer low-water designs without making technology alone dispositive.

Finding 6 - Backup generation is a land-use issue

Large engine arrays can create noise, exhaust, fuel, fire and cumulative air effects even when called emergency equipment.

Recommendation: distinguish outage operation, testing, commissioning and routine/demand-response generation; require cumulative air/acoustic review, synchronized-test modeling, non-emergency hour caps and logs, and greater separation from sensitive uses.

Finding 7 - Existing noise limits are necessary but incomplete

Title 9 sets receiving-zone dBA limits, but modern data centers raise tonal and low-frequency noise and multiple operating modes.

Recommendation: add baseline, octave-band/low-frequency, tonal/impulsive, full-cooling, generator-test and post-opening verification requirements.

Finding 8 - Public capacity should not be reserved for speculation

The current use listing contains no data-center-specific proof of capital, equipment orders, milestone or expiration standard.

Recommendation: require parcel control, financing evidence, applicant-funded IID obligations, staged load-ramp milestones, automatic expiration and decommissioning security.

Finding 9 - Existing projects require individual legal analysis

“Pending” and “grandfathered” are not legal conclusions. Rights may arise from specific permits, vesting tentative maps, development agreements or common-law vesting, each with a defined scope.

Recommendation: have County Counsel publish a project-by-project entitlement table and written scope determination. Apply new rules prospectively and to pending matters to the extent legally allowed; honor proven rights only to their documented scope.

Finding 10 - The County can offer a constructive development path

A clear list of preferred study areas and evidence requirements can protect communities while reducing wasted applicant and staff effort.

Recommendation: create a pre-application fatal-flaw screen and publish the suitability methodology, application checklist, review sequence and standard conditions.

Implementation package

  1. General Plan policy amendment on data-center location, infrastructure and compatibility.
  2. Title 9 definitions, tier table, use permissions and anti-segmentation rule.
  3. Data Center Suitability Overlay and atlas.
  4. Enhanced CUP findings and application checklist.
  5. Model specific-plan/development-agreement terms for system-scale campuses.
  6. Operating verification and enforcement schedule.
  7. Transition ordinance and County Counsel entitlement table.
  8. Annual public report: permitted/operating MW, water use, generator testing, compliance and expired approvals, protecting customer confidentiality.

Remaining evidence before final adoption

Source file: view in the public committee library