HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-10-12 Crisitina Holt SupportFrom: Tina Holt
To: Planning LPC Testimony
Subject: Support Bill 170
Date: Monday, October 12, 2026 2:03:16 PM
Attachments: LPC Written Testimony HOLT - SUPPORT BILL 170.pdf
Aloha,
Please accept my updated testimony in support of Bill 170/ agenda item 6 to be heard this Thursday.
Thank you,
Cristina Holt
Written Testimony in Support of Bill 170 (agenda item 6)
Aloha Chair and Commissioners. My name is Cristina Holt and I am a resident of Hilo
testifying in my personal capacity in strong support of Bill 170. Over the past several months
I have spent more than 100 hours researching this issue: Hawaiʻi County's zoning code, the
State Legislature's own resolutions, comparable ordinances and proposed legislation
elsewhere in the country, and primary-source reporting on this bill's progress through both
Planning Commissions. Along with Chuck Flaherty of the Sierra Club Hawaiʻi Island Group,
I believe I am currently among the most informed non-professional resources available to
this Commission on this specific question, and I am glad to answer any questions
Commissioners may have about the research below at Thursday's hearing.
My ask is specific and narrow: please give Bill 170 a favorable recommendation, and
recommend a strengthened definition of “data center” to replace the bill's current
subjective definition language with an objective one built around measurable,
independent triggers, any one of which would qualify a facility as a data center:
• A combined electrical demand of 5 megawatts or more.
• A design or equipment capacity to deliver 20 kilowatts or more of power to a single
server rack.
• The use of cooling systems that circulate liquid to individual hardware components
or submerge hardware in liquid.
The definition should also explicitly count a campus of facilities under common
ownership or control as a single project, not several smaller ones, so a developer cannot
design around any of these thresholds by splitting one facility across several buildings
or parcels.
Please continue reading to learn more about my research and to see a full proposed
definition:
What is Bill 170?
Hawaiʻi County's zoning code (CH25) has not defined “data center.” That gap means an
“industrial-scale” AI facility could legally call itself a “data processing facility,” which is the
definition meant for something like a small office server room, with none of the extra
scrutiny a project that size should get. [1]
Bill 170, introduced by Councilmember Heather Kimball, [2] aims to fix that by drawing a
clear line in the code: it amends the existing “data processing facility” definition and adds a
brand new “data center” definition, so the two are no longer the same thing in the eyes of the
law.
Why it functions as a ban: Hawaiʻi County zoning already treats anything not explicitly
listed as a permitted use as prohibited. [1] Bill 170 defines “data center” but does not list it as
permitted anywhere, which means once a facility legally qualifies as a data center, there is
nowhere on this island it can legally be built. No new enforcement agency, no new permit
process, just the existing rule doing its job.
What's good about Bill 170
• Section 1 of the bill states that the intent is to block these large data centers from
being built in Hawaii County.
• Section 2 changes the definition of “data processing facility” by clearly stating that
data centers are not included in “data processing facilities,” which are permitted in
Mixed Use Industrial/Commercial Zones.
• Section 3 Attempts to define “data center,” though the definition is what needs work.
• The community is engaged and united around not wanting these facilities built here
without real protections in place first.
What could be improved in Bill 170
The bill as originally written leans on subjective language, phrases like “industrial-scale
operation” and “beyond that typically accessory or incidental to office, commercial, or
public institutional uses.” [2] Those phrases do not draw a clear line, and a well-resourced
developer's attorney can easily argue a project around them. Commissioners at the October 1
Windward Planning Commission hearing said as much themselves: [3] they agreed data
centers do not belong here, they simply found the definition too unclear to act on with
confidence.
The fix is to replace that vague language with one objective number: 5 megawatts of
electrical demand. I am leading with this number because it is the same threshold the Hawaiʻi
State Legislature itself uses in HCR 206 HD1, [4] the resolution that created a state working
group to study large data centers. When the state's own lawmakers already agree on where
this line should be, that is a number nobody can credibly argue is arbitrary.
And, let me be clear: the fact that there is a state working group to study these large data
centers is not a reason for the County of Hawaiʻi to fail to act while waiting on their report.
We can and should take direction from them in that 5 megawatts is a reasonable starting
measurement to define large-scale data centers for ourselves.
Here is what strong, concrete definition language can look like.
“Data center” means a facility, or two or more facilities under common ownership or
control, used for the large-scale operation of computer systems and associated equipment,
that either has a combined electrical demand of 5 megawatts or more, is designed or
equipped to deliver 20 kilowatts or more of electrical power to a single server rack, or
utilizes cooling systems that circulate liquid to individual hardware components or
submerge hardware in liquid. This term does not include data processing facilities as
defined in Section 25-1-5, hospital or government data systems, university computing or
research facilities in which servers are incidental to the primary use, or
telecommunications facilities used primarily to provide telephone, broadband, cable, or
other communications services to the public.
This definition reflects hundreds of hours of research and discussion. I ask the Commission
to seriously consider it, or language like it, as the basis for a strengthened definition.
Councilmember Kimball has raised a concern that a more specific definition opens up more
loopholes than a vague one. I'd ask the Commission to weigh the evidence the other way.
Vagueness is what hands a developer's attorney room to maneuver: Commissioners at the
October 1 hearing said themselves that phrases like “industrial-scale” are too unclear to act
on with confidence. [3] An objective threshold removes that argument entirely, there is no
room to dispute whether 5 megawatts is 5 megawatts. Every enacted data center ordinance I
have found in a broader survey of other jurisdictions anchors its definition to an objective
number rather than a subjective description, including Spartanburg County, South Carolina's
1-megawatt threshold [5] and West Virginia's 90-megawatt threshold [6]. Specificity is also
the only thing capable of closing a specific loophole. Fayetteville, Georgia's ordinance pairs a
numeric power-density trigger with its use definitions so precisely that any facility crossing
that line is automatically classified as a cryptocurrency mining operation and therefore
banned outright, with no discretion involved. [7] A vague standard cannot do that kind of
work. It can only be argued about.
The Planning Director's Recommendation Report needs more time, not less
The Planning Director's own Recommendation Report, prepared for this hearing, proposes
something different from what Bill 170 does today: permitting data centers under 10,000
square feet by right in the General Industrial district, and requiring a Use Permit above that
threshold, reviewed against six factors covering electrical demand, water and cooling, noise,
emergency access, buffering, and traffic. [8] That is not a clarification of Bill 170's existing
ban, it is a new permitted pathway where none currently exists.
I ask the Commission to reject these recommended amendments as premature, not Bill 170
itself. The Planning Department is already working with a consultant on a comprehensive
rewrite of county code Chapters 25 (Zoning) and 23 (Subdivisions), which the Sierra Club of
Hawaiʻi's Hawaiʻi Island Group has also testified is the appropriate venue for a detailed
permitted-use framework like this one, not a rushed addition to a bill that was only ever
meant to fix a definition. [9] And the recommendations have not been fully vetted even on
their own terms: the Director's proposal would add data centers over 10,000 square feet to the
Use Permit list in Section 25-2-61(a), but leaves subsection (c) untouched, and (c) exempts
any listed use from needing a county Use Permit at all if the applicant instead obtains a state
special permit under HRS 205-6. [1] As written, a developer could route the exact same
project through the state's special-permit process and skip every one of the six review factors
the Director is proposing. That is exactly the kind of gap a full code rewrite is built to catch,
and exactly what rushing these amendments through now risks missing.
Why this is worth acting on now
Some will say this is overblown, premature concern about something that is not actually
happening here yet. A state representative has said close to that, and the state's own energy
officer has said, “we're not a candidate,” for data centers, citing a lack of the cheap power
and grid capacity they need. [10]
That framing does not hold up. The same lawmaker who raised this concern is also a primary
sponsor of HCR 206 HD1, [4, 11] the resolution that created a state working group to study
large data centers because they are a serious enough possibility to warrant formal study. The
same person who called this premature also put her name on a resolution asking for the study
of it.
Nor is this a distraction from county business. Maintaining and updating the zoning code is
one of the County's core, ongoing responsibilities, not a special project pulled from
somewhere else. Bill 170 is a short, one-time fix to language that is already decades out of
date.
Some will say we should allow these data centers / should not pass Bill 170 because we will
prevent jobs from coming here, and that a cautious approach means saying no to opportunity
and innovation for our people. The research doesn't back that up. Brookings Institution's own
analysis found the standard data center development model “has produced mostly short-term
construction jobs in recent years and relatively little long-term, high-value tech activity or
large-scale employment.” [12] A separate Brookings study of counties getting their first large
facility found roughly 100 to 200 permanent local jobs, [13] not the thousands sometimes
promised. Overall, the number of potential short term and long term jobs must be weighed
against what the community would be giving up in water, grid capacity, all on the long term.
To be so incredibly clear: this is not about being against innovation or technology. It's about
an industry that has shown, over and over, how willing it is to move fast and build
irresponsibly, and how little it weighs the wellbeing of the people living next to what it
builds. In Fayetteville, Georgia, a QTS data center campus used nearly 30 million gallons of
water through hookups the utility didn't even know about, while nearby residents dealt with
low water pressure, and the company wasn't billed for it until a resident's public records
request forced the issue. [14] The city council's response was to prohibit data centers,
cryptocurrency data centers, commercial cryptocurrency mining, and cryptocurrency server
farms outright in every zoning district, with the Planning and Zoning Commission having no
authority to grant a variance or exception. [7]
Hawaiʻi Island has limited water, a fragile grid, and electricity rates nearly three times the
national average. [15] We don't need to wait for a company to show up with a proposal to
know this is the wrong place for a hyperscale data center. Defining these now, before a
company shows up with an actual proposal, means the county sets the terms on its own
timeline.
Further watching, reading, and listening
Watch: “Protecting the Heartland,” an educational data center symposium with Tammy
Clark and Kristen Megan Kelly: https://youtu.be/-kEOLTX8Hr8
Watch: Recording of our community Zoom walkthrough of Bill 170, plus future
meetings, on the CivicsEdHI YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@CivicsEdHI
Explore: An interactive map tracking AI data centers under construction, proposed, and
operating across the US: https://www.brockovichdatacenter.com/
Listen: Erin Brockovich Takes On Data Centers, wherever you get your podcasts:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/498ygLds1NcEGSBZYOLg9i
Read: HCR 206 HD1, the state resolution that suggests the 5 megawatt threshold:
http://data.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2026/bills/HCR206_HD1_.pdf
Sources and citations
[1] Hawaiʻi County Code, Chapter 25 (Zoning), §25-1-5 and §25-4-4.
https://www.hawaiicounty.gov/home/showdocument?id=302520
[2] Hawaiʻi County Council, Bill No. 170, as introduced with notes
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_cLLINZ6D8RUDgwFuQE5pP0vyNuNWoWv1jIlIoKy2Qk/edit?usp=sharing
[3] Windward Planning Commission, meeting of October 1, 2026.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-srqFNAB4LQ&t=2717s
[4] Hawaiʻi State Legislature, House Concurrent Resolution 206, H.D. 1 (2026).
http://data.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2026/bills/HCR206_HD1_.pdf
[5] Spartanburg County, SC, data center ordinance definition, Sept. 21, 2026 council agenda packet (combined connected
electrical load of one megawatt or more).
https://www.spartanburgcounty.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_09212026-2041
[6] West Virginia Code §11-6N-2, “High Impact Data Center” (critical IT load of 90 megawatts or more; in force for
facilities placed in service on or after July 1, 2025). https://code.wvlegislature.gov/pdf/11-6N-2/
[7] City of Fayetteville, GA, Unified Development Ordinance, Division 5, §207.77 (Incompatible Use of Land), as
amended by Ordinance No. 26-O-12 (adopted March 5, 2026). https://online.flippingbook.com/link/145728/
[8] Hawaiʻi County Planning Department, Recommendation Report on Bill 170 (PL-CCI-2026-000018), July 1, 2026, pp.
5-7 (Recommendation Nos. 1-4).
[9] Sierra Club of Hawaiʻi, Hawaiʻi Island Group, written testimony to the Leeward Planning Commission re: Bill 170,
Agenda Item 6, October 12, 2026.
[10] Taylor Nāhulukeaokalani Cozloff, “Big Island Wants To Ban Big Data Centers, Once They Agree On What They
Are,” Civil Beat, October 7, 2026.
https://www.civilbeat.org/2026/10/big-island-wants-to-ban-big-data-centers-once-they-agree-on-what-they-are
[11] Hawaiʻi State Legislature, official bill page for HCR 206 HD1 (2026), listing its sponsors, status, and full bill history.
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HCR&billnumber=206&year=2026
[12] Daniel Goetzel, Mark Muro, and Shriya Methkupally, “Turning the Data Center Boom into Long-Term, Local
Prosperity,” Brookings Institution, February 5, 2026.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/turning-the-data-center-boom-into-long-term-local-prosperity/
[13] Dany Bahar and Greg Wright, “New Evidence on Data Center Employment Effects,” Brookings Institution, updated
August 10, 2026. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/new-evidence-on-data-center-employment-effects/
[14] E&E News, “Georgia Residents Seethe Over 30M Gallons of Missing Water,” May 7, 2026.
https://www.eenews.net/articles/georgia-residents-seethe-over-30m-gallons-of-missing-water/
[15] U.S. Energy Information Administration, Hawaii and United States electricity profiles, 2024 data.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/hawaii/ and https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/unitedstates/
Mahalo for your time and consideration of this testimony, and for the work this Commission does for our
island. I'm available to answer any questions at Thursday's hearing or by email in advance.
Respectfully submitted, Cristina “Tina” Holt