The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2026-09-21 Cathy Cohen TestimonyFrom: Cathy Cohen To: Planning WPC Testimony Subject: SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY — BILL 170 CLOSING THE AI DATA CENTER LOOPHOLES Date: Monday, September 21, 2026 2:48:23 PM Aloha Commissioners and community, My name is Cathy Cohen. I live in Kailua-Kona. I previously submitted testimony concerning Bill 170. After reviewing the proposed definitions and participating in the September 20 community discussion, I have additional concerns about the ordinance’s language, jurisdiction, and consequences for our island. An AI data center is not an office. It is not a little computer room. And breaking a massive industrial operation into smaller pieces does not make its cumulative environmental impact disappear. 1. DEFINE WHAT A DATA CENTER ACTUALLY IS. Section 1 of Bill 170 states that its purpose is to distinguish data centers from data-processing facilities and prevent data centers from being treated as a permitted use merely because they resemble data-processing facilities. That distinction is central to the ordinance. A facility’s classification should reflect what it actually does, the equipment it contains, and the infrastructure required to operate it. Calling an industrial computing operation a data-processing facility does not change its physical operations. Neither does calling it a neocloud operation, colocation campus, or artificial intelligence facility. What objective evidence will the county use to distinguish these operations? And what prevents a commercial data center from being reclassified under another permitted use? 2. TWENTY MEGAWATTS CANNOT BECOME A LOOPHOLE. Tina Holt’s proposed definition introduces a 20-megawatt electrical-capacity threshold and combines the demand of facilities on adjacent parcels under common ownership or control. But what happens at 19 megawatts? What happens when a developer builds multiple smaller facilities? What happens when those facilities operate through separate corporations or occupy nonadjacent parcels? A numerical threshold can establish a clear classification, but it does not establish that facilities below that threshold have no environmental consequences. My concern is not simply the size of one building. IT IS THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT. I want clarification about how the county would evaluate related operations, common control, phased construction, and electrical capacity at full build-out. A corporation’s ownership structure should not obscure the actual scale of an industrial operation. 3. CLOSED-LOOP COOLING DOES NOT ELIMINATE ELECTRICAL DEMAND. Our September 20 discussion raised the question of closed-loop cooling systems. This is an important distinction. A facility may reduce its direct water consumption through improved cooling technology while continuing to require substantial electricity for computing and cooling. Reduced water consumption does not automatically mean reduced electrical demand. Nor does it eliminate the need to examine backup generators, noise, heat, and supporting infrastructure. Brookings reports that a typical data center can use approximately 300,000 gallons of water daily, while some large facilities can use an estimated five million gallons. Actual water consumption varies significantly by facility design and cooling technology. Five million gallons. A day. On an island. The public needs project-specific information about both water consumption and electricity demand, including the resources required to generate that electricity. A cooling-system improvement cannot substitute for examining the entire operation. 4. BILL 170 IS A COUNTY ZONING MEASURE — NOT AN ISLAND- WIDE GUARANTEE. This distinction became especially important during our September 20 discussion. Bill 170 proposes amendments to Chapter 25 of the Hawaiʻi County Code. It is county legislation. It does not automatically establish a statewide prohibition or govern federal military installations. The applicability of county zoning to state-owned lands also requires clarification. But here is the problem that cannot be ignored: COUNTY, STATE, AND FEDERAL FACILITIES CAN STILL DRAW UPON THE SAME ISLAND’S RESOURCES. Our electrical grid does not recognize the political jurisdiction of every customer drawing power from it. Our communities still experience the consequences of infrastructure demands and environmental damage. What happens if county zoning restricts an industrial operation while a similar facility is developed on land outside the county’s zoning authority? How will the county account for cumulative electrical and water demand associated with such facilities? What coordination exists with state and federal authorities? I want the jurisdictional limits of Bill 170 stated clearly so residents understand precisely what this ordinance covers — and what it does not. 5. OUR EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE MUST BE PART OF THE DISCUSSION. Hawaiʻi Island operates on an isolated electrical grid. Our communities depend on that system for homes, hospitals, schools, farms, water pumping, emergency services, and small businesses. The September 20 discussion also raised questions about existing generating capacity, nonrenewable energy, storage, and the potential need for additional power infrastructure. Those questions deserve documented answers. How much generating capacity is currently available? How much additional demand could industrial data centers introduce? Would new generating facilities or fuel supplies be necessary? Who would pay for infrastructure expansion? And what would happen during an emergency when residential and essential public-service needs must be met? The capacity of our island’s infrastructure must be understood before the consequences of additional industrial demand can be evaluated. 6. WE HAVE ALREADY LIVED THROUGH RED HILL. The Environmental Protection Agency documents fuel releases at Red Hill in 2014 and 2021. The 2021 disaster contaminated a drinking-water source and affected approximately 93,000 people. That is not a hypothetical environmental disaster. Those families lived it. Red Hill and data centers present different environmental hazards. But Red Hill demonstrates the consequences when essential natural resources are harmed and accountability comes after the damage. The existence of government oversight did not prevent that disaster. I do not want our island’s future to depend on discovering, after industrial facilities are operating, that the legal language intended to protect our communities contained an avoidable loophole. 7. THE LETTER OF THE LAW MUST NOT DEFEAT ITS INTENDED PURPOSE. I am asking the commission to clarify how Bill 170 addresses: • The physical and operational distinction between data-processing facilities and industrial data centers. • Facilities of different sizes, including those below a proposed electrical- capacity threshold. • Multiple related facilities operating through separate corporate entities or on nonadjacent parcels. • Phased construction and electrical demand at full build-out. • Facilities using closed-loop cooling that nevertheless require substantial electrical infrastructure. • The extent of county jurisdiction and the applicability of zoning restrictions to state-owned and federal lands. • The cumulative demand placed on Hawaiʻi Island’s electricity, water, and public infrastructure. • Exemptions that could allow an otherwise covered commercial operation to be reclassified. These are not merely questions about individual buildings. They concern the combined impact of industrial development on the resources that sustain our island. And who bears the consequences when environmental protection fails? Our families. Our farmers. Our keiki. Our kūpuna. Our local businesses. Future generations. There is an old environmental warning that we will eventually realize we cannot eat money. Here on Hawaiʻi Island, that warning has an immediate meaning. YOU CANNOT DRINK DATA. YOU CANNOT EAT DATA. AND YOU CANNOT COOL AI SERVERS WITH BROKEN PUBLIC TRUST. Our natural resources are not expendable, and environmental damage cannot always be reversed with money. The people of Hawaiʻi Island deserve clear definitions, transparent information, and an accurate understanding of what this legislation can — and cannot — accomplish. No corporate escape hatches. No legal word games. No loopholes disguised as technical definitions. OUR SURVIVAL CANNOT DEPEND ON HOW CLEVERLY A CORPORATION’S LAWYERS DEFINE ITS OPERATIONS. Mahalo for your attention. Cathy Cohen 321-806-8140 Kailua-Kona, Hawaiʻi Island