Data Center Ordinance

After review, the Commissioners have decided not to require a fixed amount of on-site solar for data centers. Here’s why:

It conflicts with our farmland preservation priorities.

Data centers already require large land areas. Requiring additional on-site solar—especially ground-mounted—would often mean more farmland and open space being converted just to meet an arbitrary percentage.

We are not going to adopt a policy that, in the name of sustainability, accelerates the loss of agricultural land. That is a contradiction we are not willing to ignore.

It does not function as a meaningful deterrent.

There is a misconception that a high on-site solar requirement will discourage data center development.

In reality, it will not.

Data center developers select sites based on access to power, fiber, and regional demand. If additional land is needed to meet a solar mandate, they are far more likely to purchase more land than abandon a viable project. Developers are likely to do what local government gives them the incentive to do. If developers are required to add large solar fields, they will add large solar fields. If developers cannot add solar generation and conclude that the requirement is a pretext to prevent development, they will sue and contend the requirement is unlawful, preempted, and the like – causing local government to incur substantial legal fees defending the requirement. 

The likely outcome is not fewer data centers—it is larger ones, consuming more land.

It risks being inefficient and ineffective.

Not every site is well-suited for on-site solar. Forcing a fixed requirement can lead to suboptimal installations that do not maximize energy production, while still increasing land disturbance.

Protecting farmland and open spaces

Unlike other types of development, data centers already require large amounts of land. Requiring additional on-site solar would often mean even more land must be acquired and cleared—including farmland and open space—to meet a fixed percentage requirement.  A mandate could unintentionally accelerate the loss of agricultural land, which runs counter to our long-standing preservation goals.

Addressing a common misconception

There is a belief that requiring a large percentage of on-site solar would discourage data center development. However, in practice:

• Data center developers are not typically deterred by land requirements alone.
• These projects are driven by access to power infrastructure, fiber connectivity and regional market needs—not just site size.
• A strict on-site solar requirement is more likely to result in larger land purchases, not fewer projects.

In other words, a high on-site solar mandate can act less as a deterrent and more as a driver of expanded land consumption.

Bottom line

We will not adopt a policy that looks good on paper but produces worse real-world outcomes—including the unnecessary loss of farmland.