By Ryan Applegate
People’s Defender
(This article is the second installment in an ongoing series examining the potential development of a data center in Adams County. Over the coming weeks, The People’s Defender will publish additional in‑depth articles exploring the possible benefits, concerns, and long‑term implications raised by residents, county officials, and industry experts. Readers can expect detailed reporting in subsequent editions as more information becomes available and public discussions continue.)
Adams County residents are evaluating what a potential data center project would mean in practical terms for bills, jobs, water, roads, and the long term use of the former J.M. Stuart and Killen power plant properties, and the questions converge on details of these sites, on statewide utility policy, and on how large technology loads are being served across the region. County development officials have publicly acknowledged nondisclosure agreements and early due diligence with infrastructure agencies while emphasizing that no formal proposal has been presented for approval and that any project would go through a public process, a position reported in regional coverage that has tracked interest in the two riverfront sites.
The ownership of both properties shifted from prior utility operators to entities associated with Kingfisher Development and Commercial Liability Partners beginning in late 2019, and the sites have since proceeded under Ohio EPA Director’s Final Findings and Orders that require ongoing closure, monitoring, and remediation steps for industrial units and waste areas on the properties. Publicly accessible coal combustion residuals pages and historic federal assessments provide additional technical documentation of impoundments and groundwater monitoring for the Killen location, which has been the subject of routine dam inspections and CCR reports as part of site oversight.
According to Craig Robinson, a Blue Creek native and data center engineer with four decades of experience, the Stuart property encompasses more than a thousand acres with hundreds of acres now marketable, its main plant structures are down with ancillary buildings and materials handling assets remaining, and legacy ash management units require monitoring because portions of the waste systems predate today’s environmental standards, and he adds that historic groundwater sampling has detected constituents such as arsenic and selenium that drive continuing oversight by the site owner and regulators. Ohio EPA’s published orders and related enforcement materials confirm that the Stuart and Killen sites are operating under Director’s Final Findings and Orders that require closure planning, groundwater monitoring, and corrective actions for ash management units and associated facilities, and those records indicate responsibilities assigned to Kingfisher affiliated entities that assumed assets and liabilities after the 2019 transfer from the prior utility owners.
Robinson describes the former Stuart interconnection as a meaningful node on the regional grid, recalling that when the plant operated it strengthened voltage along the river corridor and connected directly into the high voltage system, and he cautions that any future data center would shift the site from generation to large load unless paired with on site supply. PJM, the independent transmission organization that coordinates electricity flows for Ohio and a dozen other jurisdictions, documents its role in planning and approving new interconnections at substations and switchyards, and a recent facilities study for a separate solar project at the Adams 138 kilovolt station shows how expansion breakers, metering, and protective relays are added when new capacity ties in, which illustrates the process any large project in the county would follow.
For household electric bills, the most immediate development is that Ohio regulators created a billing structure that is meant to prevent cost shifting of grid upgrades from very large new customers to everyone else, as the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio approved an AEP Ohio tariff in July 2025 that requires new data centers above a threshold to pay for at least 85 percent of subscribed capacity for up to 12 years with a defined ramp period and to post financial assurances and exit fees, while ordering an end to a moratorium on new service agreements once the tariff took effect. AEP’s public tariff page confirms the effective dates, the intake process, the 25 megawatt trigger, and the staged load ramp that sets minimum contracted capacity by year, and the page explains that study fees and technical questionnaires apply before a final plan of service proceeds through regional review.
A question that often arises is where the electricity would come from and whether power can keep up with growth, and here the broader context is that the International Energy Agency projects data center electricity demand will more than double worldwide by 2030 while also pointing to a diverse mix of resources and efficiency measures that policy makers and operators are using to serve the growth in advanced economies. Companies have also begun pairing major loads with dedicated clean, firm supply to reduce exposure to constrained interconnections and to meet corporate climate goals, exemplified by Microsoft’s twenty year agreement with Constellation to restart Three Mile Island Unit 1 as the Crane Clean Energy Center and match around the clock output within the PJM footprint, subject to regulatory approvals and licensing, which shows one way a large user can underwrite dependable megawatts that align with new data demand. Robinson’s perspective is that securing a long term, clearly identified power plan, whether through behind the meter generation, dedicated clean supply contracts, or utility upgrades timed to load arrival, is central to whether a project benefits rather than burdens the local grid.
Residents also ask what a project means for jobs and tax base, and national accounting by PwC for the Data Center Coalition reports large aggregate employment and GDP effects from data center construction and operations across the United States, while commercial real estate analysis by CBRE documents significant local tax receipts tied to personal property and equipment in leading markets and notes examples in states that include Ohio, Nebraska, and Virginia, which helps explain why communities with industrial land and substations are attracting interest. The World Economic Forum has described the AI and data center buildout as a visible contributor to business investment and GDP growth in the U.S., a macroeconomic backdrop that frames why both developers and regions are moving quickly, even as utilities and regulators update rules to align growth with infrastructure.
Water and wastewater are local concerns because many households rely on wells and because the Ohio River is a shared resource, and a balanced view begins with national context from the Environmental Law Institute’s 2026 fact sheet that quantifies direct and indirect water use at data centers and outlines mitigation options such as reclaimed water, siting in cooler climates, and technology that reduces potable withdrawals, while cautioning that evaporative systems can concentrate salts and raise treatment questions at discharge. A briefing used by state consumer advocates compiles corporate examples showing that operators have cut potable withdrawals through on site reuse and process changes at specific facilities, which illustrates that water outcomes depend on the chosen cooling technology and a site’s hydrology rather than a single industrywide number. In Adams County, residents have expressed that water is more than an engineering consideration, and Nikki Gerber of Monroe Township has said that water must be viewed as a resource belonging to future generations as much as the present one, adding that the community should fully understand any project’s demand, sourcing, and long term hydrological impact before taking a position.
Her remarks underscore a widely shared sentiment that decisions about groundwater and river use should proceed from complete information and transparent discussion rather than assumptions or haste. Robinson’s assessment aligns with this emphasis on clarity, as he notes that any proposal should specify source water, peak and average demand, wastewater composition and discharge method, and long term protection measures for aquifers and the river so that residents and officials can evaluate the project on its actual footprint rather than generalized concerns.
Air quality and noise questions often relate to backup power, and peer reviewed and university led research in Northern Virginia documents the growth of diesel generator fleets associated with data center clusters and their contribution to local emissions during testing and outage conditions, findings that have spurred policy debate and interest in cleaner contingency solutions. Industry deployments show that battery energy storage can, in some cases, displace or sharply reduce diesel run time, as demonstrated by a Microsoft data center in Sweden where a multi megawatt battery system was installed as extended ride through and grid service capacity, and equipment providers have published technical guidance explaining how multi hour batteries can support reliability while lowering local emissions under routine conditions, although long duration grid events still require careful design. Robinson’s perspective is that technology choices for backup should be evaluated in the same way as water and power plans, with site specific engineering, permitting, and neighborhood conditions made public before commitments are made.
Traffic, land use, and neighborhood effects will hinge on a site plan, and county leadership has publicly argued that the former plant sites are isolated relative to subdivisions and were historically built for heavy industrial activity, which they contend could reduce land use conflicts compared with proposals on farmland or near new housing, while residents have asked that transparency and public input be guaranteed before any decision. Public documents show that the properties remain subject to environmental orders and CCR program reporting, and residents can review Ohio EPA’s eDocuments to follow schedules for pond closures, groundwater monitoring reports, and related compliance for both sites. Robinson’s neutral view is that any redevelopment should proceed only in step with environmental obligations already in place, with independent verification that legacy units are being closed and monitored according to schedule.
The near term effect for households is the presence of a state approved billing framework designed to keep the cost of serving very large new loads from being shifted to other customers, the knowledge that any interconnection would be studied and published through the PJM process, and the assurance from county leaders that no final decision exists today and that a public process would precede approvals. The potential long term effect, if a proposal proceeds, would be measured in construction employment and supplier activity, a smaller number of steady operational roles, equipment based tax receipts, and infrastructure upgrades that would be negotiated and scheduled alongside stated water, wastewater, and backup power plans, and those outcomes will depend on the scale and phasing a developer proposes and on the conditions the county requires.
Leave a Reply