[Andy Fox]

I received a letter President of AT&T-Tennessee, James Jamison, which I sent to Dru for circulation. His concern and remedy echoes Commissioner Hill. He notes that AT&T communication centers operate well below the peak electrical demand in the moratorium. His concern is about the language being overly broad. I do not think this is possible, given how ordinances are interpreted. This is my response to Pres. Jamison, and I believe it addresses Commissioner Hill’s proposal.

Pres. Jamison:

I regret that I do not have adequate time today to write a formal response on letterhead. My response is that under standard statutory construction principles, the “and” within the moratorium by necessity requires the inclusion of the 5 MW for any facility that could fall within the definition of a data center. Consequently, I do not share your concern that the moratorium could inadvertently capture facilities owned by AT&T or any other telecoms provider, which as you note do not require the type of intensive computing power that is required to bring the peak electric demand over 5 MW. In talking with Knox County’s director of IT, Zach Webb, power demands for normal business-related computer demands have actually decreased in the past years, as technology continues to improve the efficiency of computer chips.

I would consider amending the moratorium to reiterate that the moratorium is not intended to capture any facility described by subsection a and subsection b, but is less than 5 MW. I am not willing to consider a blank check exemption for facilities filled with banks and banks of processing units and fans, that are described as telecommunication centers versus data centers. The nomenclature does not matter, the power demand, water usage, environmental impact, and noise and health impact on nearby communities do.

Regards,