06/05/2026
PIG NEWS BREAKDOWN PART 2: "The sales pitch" Greenwood Officials Make the Case for Data Centers After Planning Commission Recommends 24-Month Moratorium
Here is everything you need to know about that meeting. Cheers.
GREENWOOD COUNTY, S.C. — Greenwood County leaders and utility officials made an extensive case for preparing the county for future data center development, even after the Greenwood Joint Planning Commission unanimously denied a proposed zoning amendment and recommended a 24-month moratorium.
The meeting, described by some residents as a “sales pitch,” covered far more than zoning language. Officials discussed Amazon, sewer infrastructure, rural land, electric capacity, water use, gas service, wastewater treatment, noise, lighting, tax revenue, school funding and the county’s ability to compete for large-scale industrial projects.
At the center of the discussion was a proposed text amendment that would add data centers as a conditional use in several zoning districts, including Light Industrial, Heavy Industrial and Rural Development District zoning.
County officials said the change was needed because Greenwood County’s current zoning ordinance does not clearly address data centers. The term “data center” does not currently appear in the zoning ordinance, leaving officials concerned that a company could purchase land in a Rural Development District and move forward with minimal restrictions.
More than 26% of all parcels in Greenwood County were described as being zoned Rural Development District. The concern raised during the meeting was that, under the current ordinance, a data center could potentially be developed on one of those parcels with limited county oversight.
Officials argued the amendment was not about opening the door to data centers, but about putting guardrails in place before one arrives.
However, the rest of the meeting appeared to go much further than a simple discussion about safeguards.
Amazon, Sewer and the 96 Business Park
Before the data center discussion, council members heard details about an infrastructure credit agreement involving Amazon at the 96 Business Park.
The county would reimburse Amazon through property tax abatement for qualified off-site sewer infrastructure expenses, up to a maximum of $1.2 million over about three years.
The sewer line discussed would serve public infrastructure leading up to Amazon’s property, while Amazon would be responsible for sewer and utilities on its own site. Officials stated there would be no fee-in-lieu-of-tax agreement involved in that specific transaction.
The presentation also noted that Amazon would be the first new tenant in the park and that the sewer infrastructure would help make the broader business park viable for future tenants. One official referenced up to nine additional conceptual lots in the 96 Business Park, saying the project could open the door for future industries to locate there.
That discussion matters because it framed the broader theme of the night: Greenwood County is preparing infrastructure for growth.
The Data Center Ordinance
The next item focused on Ordinance 2026-19, a proposed amendment to add data centers as a conditional use in I-1 Light Industrial, I-2 Heavy Industrial and Rural Development District zoning.
County staff said the current ordinance does not directly address data centers. In the Rural Development District, officials said the ordinance is designed more to regulate land use than restrict it. As a result, staff warned that data centers could potentially be allowed with minimal protections under the current language.
Officials said current Rural Development District standards could allow a front setback as low as 50 feet, side and rear setbacks based on building size, and buffer yards near residential uses as low as 40 feet with vegetation or 100 feet with no vegetation. The district was also described as lacking clear decibel-level noise restrictions and clear lighting standards.
The proposed amendment would require a conditional use permit for data centers, meaning a company could not simply begin development without coming before the county.
The proposed conditions included utility verification for power, water and sewer capacity; pre-construction and post-construction sound studies; clear noise limits; photometric lighting plans; post-construction light measurements; decommissioning plans; financial security for future decommissioning; setbacks from residential uses, schools, daycares, hospitals, places of worship, parks and public open space; vegetative buffers based on building size; roadside berms and landscaping; screening of dumpsters, mechanical equipment and electrical equipment; restrictions on substations within setbacks; perimeter fencing standards; and emergency contact information posted at the site.
Staff said these conditions were written to address many of the most common public concerns about data centers and were stronger than what is required for many other industrial uses in the county.
Planning Commission Said No
Despite staff’s recommendation, the Greenwood Joint Planning Commission denied the proposed amendment unanimously.
The Planning Commission also recommended that County Council impose a 24-month moratorium on data centers to gather more information.
Three people spoke in favor of the amendment at the Planning Commission meeting, while approximately 13 spoke against it.
That recommendation is significant because it shows the county’s own Planning Commission did not simply ask for minor edits. It rejected the proposed ordinance and recommended a two-year pause.
County Council, however, continued forward with the discussion.
Council Chairman Says the Process Was Moving Quickly for a Reason
During the meeting, one council leader acknowledged public concern that the county was moving quickly.
He said that concern was correct.
The reason given was that county staff and council members believed Greenwood was exposed under the current zoning ordinance. If a data center company purchased Rural Development District land before new standards were adopted, the county may have few tools to stop or regulate the project.
The chairman said the county was moving quickly because every day without the amendment created risk.
That statement became one of the most important moments of the meeting. In plain language, county leadership appeared to be saying Greenwood County is already vulnerable to data center development under current rules, and the proposed amendment is intended to get ahead of that risk.
“Data Centers Have Contacted Me”
The county’s economic development director then gave a lengthy presentation that shifted the tone from zoning defense to economic development opportunity.
He said Greenwood County’s available land and utilities make it attractive to many industries, including data centers.
He also explained that economic development work often requires confidentiality and that he cannot publicly disclose company names or project details early in the site-selection process. He warned that prematurely releasing company information can harm both the project and Greenwood County’s reputation in industrial recruitment.
Then came one of the clearest statements of the night.
The economic development director said data centers have contacted him.
He added that this does not mean data centers are the county’s “target industry,” and said Greenwood County is not recruiting data centers. However, he also said the county has the capability to support data center development and the opportunity to be rewarded if prepared.
That statement raises an obvious public question:
If Greenwood is not recruiting data centers, why were county leaders, utility providers, school officials and economic development representatives prepared to give such an extensive presentation on why Greenwood can support them?
The Everyday Uses Argument
The presentation then turned to how data centers are used in daily life.
Officials discussed cloud storage, phone apps, photos, videos, manufacturing automation, robotics, financial transactions, banking, credit cards, ATMs, artificial intelligence and medical records.
The argument was that data centers are already part of modern life, whether people realize it or not.
A representative from Self Regional Healthcare also spoke, explaining that the hospital uses data centers for electronic medical records, MyChart, Microsoft systems, document storage and medical imaging, including MRIs, CT scans and X-rays.
Self Regional currently stores more than 700 terabytes of data in data centers. The speaker said medical records are stored redundantly in more than one location to protect patient information if one data center goes down.
That portion of the presentation appeared designed to make data centers feel less like an outside industrial threat and more like basic digital infrastructure.
How Big Could These Facilities Be?
Officials said there is no one-size-fits-all model for data centers.
They can be single-story or multi-story. They can include power yards, substations, backup power systems, office buildings and large “data halls” containing racks, servers and chips.
The presentation described data centers as ranging from small to massive.
Officials said Greenwood County likely does not have the land, road and utility infrastructure needed for the massive thousand-acre data center campuses seen in other parts of the country. However, they said Greenwood could support medium to large data centers depending on utilities and land availability.
As a size reference, one official pointed to a speculative industrial building in north Greenwood County on Highway 25. That building was described as approximately 108,500 square feet, expandable to about 155,000 square feet, sitting on 11 acres. Officials said that was not a proposed data center, but it was used to help the public understand the possible scale of smaller facilities.
A larger data center could involve multiple buildings on hundreds of acres.
Cooling: Open Loop vs. Closed Loop
Water use was one of the major public concerns addressed during the meeting.
Officials distinguished between open-loop cooling systems and closed-loop systems.
Open-loop systems were described as the kind of systems associated with large water loss. Closed-loop systems, which officials said are becoming more common, were compared to a car radiator or HVAC system. These systems require an initial fill of water and then smaller amounts of makeup water over time.
The county’s message was clear: modern closed-loop data centers would not use water at the same scale as older water-intensive facilities.
That claim may become one of the most important points for the public to verify before any project is approved.
Duke Energy: Power, Rates and Interruptions
A Duke Energy representative addressed concerns that data centers could consume all available power or drive up electric rates.
He said Duke has dealt with large-load customers for years, mostly manufacturers, but has seen a major increase in data center activity over the last three or four years. He said demand is growing rapidly, especially because of artificial intelligence.
The Duke representative said the utility’s priority is to keep the lights on and keep prices fair. He said Duke is regulated by the South Carolina Public Service Commission and that major generation investments are subject to oversight.
He also said Duke is preparing for growth across its system, including new generation over the next seven to eight years. That could include combined-cycle natural gas, solar, extending nuclear plant life and potentially new nuclear resources.
For large data center customers, Duke described a more intensive process than what typical manufacturers face. The process includes engineering studies, deposits, service agreements and requirements meant to protect existing customers.
Large customers may be required to sign long-term agreements of at least 15 years. They may also be required to pay for at least 75% of their contracted demand even if they use less, preventing existing customers from absorbing the cost of unused infrastructure.
For very large loads over 100 megawatts, Duke said data centers may have to agree to be interruptible for a number of years. In other words, during extreme demand conditions, Duke said the data centers — not existing residents or businesses — would be interrupted first.
The Duke representative said data centers would not receive special incentives or special rates and would be required to put up collateral to protect the customer base if a project shut down before fulfilling its contract.
County officials also discussed a site visit to another data center project where the company reportedly paid for and built more than 19 miles of transmission line. Duke indicated that if a similar project occurred in South Carolina, the data center would be expected to pay for necessary transmission upgrades.
Greenwood CPW: Water and Gas Capacity
Greenwood CPW’s general manager then addressed water and gas.
He said CPW’s water plant is permitted to withdraw 55 million gallons per day from Lake Greenwood and is designed to treat 33 million gallons per day. The plant currently averages about 9 to 10 million gallons per day.
He also said three industrial closures in recent years resulted in the loss of about 2 billion gallons of treated water demand, which he compared to approximately 15,000 residential water customers.
The average water use of CPW’s top five industrial users was described as about 310,000 gallons per day.
For a modern closed-loop data center, CPW said the initial water fill may be around 300,000 to 400,000 gallons, with only periodic makeup water after that. CPW described that as roughly equivalent to one day of use for an average industrial customer.
CPW also addressed older-style data centers that could use much larger amounts of water, including figures as high as 12 million gallons per day. Even then, CPW said it has capacity because the system is treating 9 to 10 million gallons per day on a plant designed for 33 million gallons per day.
On gas, CPW said it is using about 42% of its contract capacity during peak conditions, leaving about 58% available.
The CPW representative said the gas side was hit even harder by the loss of industrial customers, including a loss of more than 5,000 dekatherms per day, representing about 15% of peak contract capacity. He compared that lost gas demand to approximately 45,000 residential gas customers.
CPW’s argument was that large industrial customers, including a gas-fired data center, could help replace lost industrial demand and stabilize the system financially.
CPW also said data centers would be required to pay for engineering studies, delivery point upgrades, distribution upgrades, regulator stations and related system improvements before moving forward.
The message from CPW was simple: if the data center gets the service, the data center pays for the service.
Gas-Fired Data Centers
Council also asked about gas-fired data centers.
CPW said Greenwood does not have the capacity or desire to serve the very largest data centers. But for smaller or mid-sized facilities, CPW said the system could potentially handle the load.
A 5,000-dekatherm-per-day startup load was described as roughly equivalent to the three industries that were lost in recent years.
A 50-megawatt facility was described as equivalent to about 15,000 dekatherms per day, which CPW said the system could handle under current firm delivery conditions.
A 100-megawatt facility was described as approximately 30,000 dekatherms per day. CPW said that level could be handled from a delivery-point standpoint with modifications, but would likely require work on the distribution side.
CPW said larger loads could be structured so the customer is responsible for procuring the gas, while CPW transports it through its system.
Wastewater: Capacity, Biology and Receiving Waters
A representative from the Greenwood Metropolitan District also spoke about wastewater capacity.
GMD said it has experienced approximately a 53% reduction in industrial flow volume over the last several years. At the same time, the cost of operating treatment plants remains largely fixed.
GMD said about 75% of its operating costs are fixed. Treatment plants still have to be staffed and operated whether they are treating 8 million gallons per day or 12 million gallons per day.
GMD said developers are responsible for building collection infrastructure on private property and paying for outside improvements required solely for their projects. Once built to GMD standards, inspected and accepted, certain infrastructure can be transferred to GMD for ownership and maintenance.
The district operates two wastewater treatment plants with a combined permitted capacity of 14.2 million gallons per day. GMD said approximately 3.5 million gallons of treatment capacity remains available for future growth.
However, GMD also made clear that wastewater capacity is not just about gallons.
Because wastewater treatment is a biological process, the characteristics of the wastewater matter. Officials said GMD must evaluate organic material, biological activity, suspended solids, nutrients, chemical characteristics, peak flows, future expansion plans, discharge permits and the ability of receiving streams to safely absorb treated effluent.
GMD said data centers would be evaluated the same way as other developments, based on projected flows, wastewater characteristics, available infrastructure and long-term system impacts.
Officials also stated that discharge from a data center or any other industry must go into a sewer collection system and cannot be directly discharged into a stream or lake. That, they said, would be regulated through environmental requirements.
County Oversight Over Utility Verification
Officials argued that the proposed amendment would give the county oversight over the utility verification process.
Under current conditions, utility availability letters and “will serve” letters are largely between the utility provider and the developer.
The proposed conditional use process would require the county to see and evaluate that verification before a data center could be approved.
That was one of the strongest arguments made in favor of the ordinance: without the amendment, the county may have less visibility into whether a proposed data center can actually be served safely and responsibly.
Noise and Light
Officials also spent significant time addressing noise and light.
They acknowledged that data centers in other parts of the country have caused noise and light pollution.
Diesel backup generators were discussed as one possible source of noise. Officials said noise can be reduced through setbacks, sound enclosures and other mitigation measures, but also acknowledged that mitigation is sometimes not done because it costs more.
Officials said newer technologies, including linear generators and fuel cells, may produce lower emissions and lower noise levels than traditional diesel generators or gas turbines.
The proposed amendment would require pre-construction sound studies, post-construction studies, construction noise mitigation plans, barriers, equipment staging, daytime construction rules and ongoing monitoring.
Officials also discussed lighting standards and compared proposed light restrictions to existing commercial and industrial examples around Greenwood County. The presentation referenced a 60-decibel noise standard, describing that level as roughly comparable to normal conversation or a home HVAC unit depending on distance and conditions.
The goal of this portion of the presentation appeared to be reassuring residents that a data center would not look or sound like the worst examples being discussed online.
The Money Pitch
The final portion of the meeting shifted heavily toward tax revenue.
Officials discussed a hypothetical $5 billion data center investment. That figure was described as an example between Meta’s reported $800 million investment and Google’s reported $9 billion investment in Dorchester County.
Using that $5 billion example, officials said the project could generate approximately $53.48 million in property taxes at a 4% assessment ratio.
The presentation then walked through multiple ways that money could be distributed.
Under one scenario, the county operating fund would receive about $12.2 million, special funds about $1.7 million, capital funds about $700,000, the vocational facility shared by school districts about $1.8 million, Piedmont Technical College just over $1 million, and the county library about $1.3 million.
Officials also discussed potential school district impacts. One scenario suggested all three school districts could recognize nearly $7.8 million combined. Another scenario suggested money could be distributed so each of the three school districts received about $8.7 million.
Officials compared the possible data center tax revenue to what would be required to generate the same money through residential growth or tax increases.
Greenwood County would need approximately 24,975 new homes valued around $200,000 each to generate comparable revenue. Officials also said the equivalent could require a 75-mill tax increase, which they described as about a $600 increase for many homeowners.
They also stated Greenwood County currently has about 17,400 single-family homes, meaning adding nearly 25,000 homes would represent a massive increase in housing stock.
The point was obvious: officials wanted the public to understand that a large data center could generate tax revenue at a scale difficult to match through residential development.
Schools Enter the Conversation
The meeting also moved toward school funding and how a major data center could impact local districts.
Officials said the revenue from a major data center could be especially significant for smaller school districts, including District 51 and District 52. The discussion suggested the revenue could potentially have a major impact on local school budgets, depending on how County Council chose to distribute funds.
What This Meeting Really Shows
This meeting shows two very different arguments happening at the same time.
The first argument is defensive: county officials say Greenwood’s current zoning ordinance leaves residents exposed because data centers may already be possible in Rural Development District zoning with few protections.
The second argument is promotional: county and utility officials spent more than an hour explaining why Greenwood has the power, water, gas, wastewater infrastructure and tax potential to support data center development.
That is why residents are calling this a sales pitch.
Officials repeatedly said the ordinance is about safeguards, not recruitment. But the meeting also included presentations on how data centers power daily life, how medical records depend on them, how utilities could serve them, how noise and light could be mitigated, how water use may be lower with modern systems, how Duke Energy would manage power demand, how CPW could benefit from gas and water demand, how GMD could replace lost industrial flow, and how a major project could bring tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue.
The Planning Commission had already said no and recommended a 24-month pause.
County Council was being told there may not be time to wait.
Questions PIG News Is Asking
PIG News believes the public deserves clear answers before Greenwood County moves forward.
The questions now include:
Has a specific data center company contacted Greenwood County?
Has a site already been discussed?
Has any company requested utility capacity information?
Have any nondisclosure agreements been signed?
Why did county leaders move forward after the Planning Commission unanimously denied the amendment?
Why was a 24-month moratorium recommended, and why should council reject or accept that recommendation?
Could a data center currently be developed in Rural Development District zoning without the new ordinance?
Would the proposed ordinance truly protect residents, or would it make data centers easier to approve?
How much water would a real project use, not a hypothetical closed-loop example?
Would backup generators be diesel, gas, linear generators or fuel cells?
Would the county require independent noise, light, water and environmental studies?
Would any project require a fee-in-lieu-of-tax agreement?
How would school districts, county government and utility providers divide future revenue?
And most importantly: when will the public be told whether Greenwood County is preparing for a specific data center project?
For now, one thing is clear.
Greenwood County officials are no longer talking about data centers as a far-off possibility.
They are talking about how to regulate them, how to serve them, how to defend them, and how much money they could bring.
Breakdown by Aaron Kahn
PIG News
Press. I Guess. News. Carolina.
Follow us to continue to receive the same trustworthy, accurate and credible stories on what matters to you and your community.
Support 🐖📰
