Judge Orders Environmental Review of Proposed Imperial County Data Center

-Editorial 

A Superior Court judge has ruled that Imperial County improperly exempted a proposed artificial intelligence data center from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Judge L. Brooks Anderholt issued a tentative decision Aug. 31 in a case brought by the City of Imperial and the Sierra Club challenging the county’s handling of the proposed project by Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing LLC.

Anderholt found that the county could not treat the approximately 75-acre development as a ministerial, or by-right, project exempt from further CEQA review.

If the tentative decision becomes final, the county would be required to set aside its November 2025 determination that grading for the project was ministerial and exempt from CEQA. The county also would have to set aside its April 2026 environmental exemption determination involving the project’s lot merger and the proposed vacation of Leimgruber Road.

The court determined that an environmental impact report is required before the project can proceed with grading, construction, or other physical development that would further commit the county to the development.

The proposed project is planned near Aten and Clark roads. Plans call for an approximately 950,000-square-foot data center with a proposed 330-megawatt electrical load, a 330-megawatt substation, an 862-megawatt-hour battery energy storage system, cooling and water-treatment facilities, four 500,000-gallon water tanks and a six-acre retention basin.

The plans also include connections to Imperial Irrigation District transmission infrastructure. Earlier plans included a 330-megawatt emergency-generation facility with 132 natural-gas generators.

The county argued that data centers have been permitted uses in its M-1 and M-2 industrial zones since a 2017 zoning amendment. Anderholt did not invalidate that amendment and stated that the case was not a vehicle to overturn the 2017 ordinance.

However, the judge found that the environmental review conducted in 2017 did not constitute project-specific CEQA review for the current data center proposal.

“The record supports finality of the land-use rule, not a finding that this Project was environmentally approved in 2017,” the decision states.

The court also rejected the county’s approach of considering individual project approvals separately when determining whether CEQA applied.

According to the decision, the grading, lot merger, road vacation, electrical facilities, water systems, and related infrastructure are components of an integrated development intended to construct and operate the data center campus.

The judge found that the county’s review of the grading application involved more than mechanical verification of fixed standards. The record included project-specific consideration of drainage, roadway improvements, traffic, soil management, and safety requirements.

The court further found that the administrative record contained substantial evidence supporting a “fair argument” that the project could result in significant environmental effects.

Areas identified by the judge included energy and electrical infrastructure, water supply and wastewater, air quality and greenhouse-gas emissions, hazardous materials and fire safety, noise, traffic, public services, land use, and cumulative or growth-inducing effects.

The decision does not order the county to permanently reject the data center and does not determine whether the project ultimately will be approved or denied.

Instead, the tentative ruling requires the county to conduct the environmental review required by CEQA before allowing the project to proceed.

The court said the county may consider relevant information from previous environmental documents but cannot presume that the 2017 zoning amendment or accompanying negative declaration resolved the environmental effects of the current proposal.

The tentative decision was dated Aug. 31. If adopted, the parties would be required to meet and confer and submit a proposed writ and judgment consistent with the final decision within 20 days after service of notice of entry, unless otherwise ordered by the court.

The ruling does not predetermine what environmental impacts ultimately will be identified or what mitigation measures may be required as part of the environmental review.