Real quick, lets talk about data centers in general, and then we’ll jump into the specifics of the proposed data center here in Apex.

Data centers are the physical infrastructure underpinning data storage, cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and other internet applications. Most data centers house data storage systems and servers (connected computers) capable of vast numbers of calculations and computing applications.

Data centers are typically located near necessary infrastructure like high-voltage power lines and high-speed fiber optic networks. They can also require substantial land use. This means you can often find data centers in suburban or rural areas, or industrial zones, where these needs can be met.

Climate can be another influential factor for the location of data centers. Because servers require cooling, differences in environment can increase the strain on air-conditioning or water-based cooling systems.

We currently have 4021 data centers listed in the US.

source: https://www.datacentermap.com/usa/

In 2023, data centers used 4% of the total U.S. electricity consumption. That number is expected to increase to 12% by 2030.

In terms of their appearance, data centers tend to resemble warehouses, large and windowless, to support a highly controlled environment optimized for equipment performance, energy efficiency, and physical security.

1. Servers
The backbone of data processing and storage, servers are computers connected together to run applications and computing tasks.

2. Storage Systems
Data centers house vast amounts of digital information, stored on solid-state drives or hard disk drives.

3. Networking Equipment
Includes routers, switches and firewalls that manage data traffic and security

4. Cooling Systems
Prevent overheating by using air or liquid cooling methods to maintain optimal operating temperatures for computers.

5. Power Infrastructure
Includes backup generators and uninterruptible power supplies to ensure continuous operation.

6. Security Systems
Physical and cyber security measures such as biometric access controls, surveillance cameras and fire suppression systems.

source: https://datacenteruniversity.be/whats-inside-a-data-center/

The unfolding situation in Apex / New Hill centers on a proposal from Natelli Investments LLC, a Maryland-based real estate firm that began focusing on data center projects five years ago.

The developer is seeking to build what they term a “digital campus” on a 190-acre farm property in the New Hill area, located at 4232 Shearon Harris Road.

The Western Wake sewage treatment facility sits directly to the west of the farmland, and Duke Energy’s Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant is located just three miles to the south.

This parcel, which is currently zoned for residential use in unincorporated Wake County, is the focal point of a complex legal and political debate. If approved, the company aims to begin construction in late 2026 or early 2027, provided all necessary approvals and site planning are finalized.

Preliminary plans for the facility call for the construction of four to six buildings, each potentially reaching a height of 75 feet. The project also includes the installation of 80 three-megawatt backup generators, which would be used during power outages and for weekly testing, a detail that has been a significant source of community concern.

The developer’s public statements present the project as an “ideal use” for the property, asserting that it aligns with the “industrial employment” designation in Apex’s 2019 “Advance Apex” 2045 Land Use Map. Natelli Investments claims the project represents a significant private investment of more than “$1 billion”. Furthermore, the developer argues that data storage facilities are “modest users of public facilities” that “generate far less traffic than residential communities” and create “high-wage technology jobs” that “strengthen the technology eco-system” in the region.

To address potential community friction, the developer has publicly committed to implementing measures to mitigate noise, lighting, and environmental impacts. These include meeting all land use requirements for lighting and landscaping and using “state-of-the-art measures to mitigate noise”.

The developer has also specified that the facility’s power will be secured directly from Duke Energy’s transmission grid and will not strain the town’s existing power supply. For cooling, the facility will use “recirculating nonpotable water drawn from the wastewater system”.

Note: The details concerning “state-of-the-art equipment” are not known truly at this time and cannot be verified. Additionally, the status of negotiations with the Town of Cary concerning the use of the wastewater treatment facility for cooling are also unknown at this time. Details and decisions concerning these items are critical in providing an accurate description to stakeholders, including those voting on the re-zoning, as well as the overall feasibility of this project (or potential pivots the developer may need to make if they cannot secure enough water from this source).

The developer’s proposal requires a multi-step process for official approval. The first step, which has already been taken, is the filing of a request to annex the 190-acre property into the Town of Apex. Annexation is necessary for the property, currently in unincorporated Wake County, to access municipal services.

Concurrent with the annexation request is a petition for rezoning from the current residential (R-30) classification to a light industrial (LI) district. This change in zoning would also require a text amendment to the town’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to add a new definition for “data storage facility”.

Now that the data center has officially submitted their rezoning application, this matter will now be heard in various hearings over the next few months.

*It will first be heard by the Environmental Advisory Board. This could happen as soon as the hearing on 9/18.

*It would then go to the Planning Board Meeting on 11/10, followed by the Town Council Meeting on 12/9.

Councilmember Mahaffey has also requested an agenda item for the Planning Committee meeting, also on 9/18, about the use classification of Data Centers (Light Industrial) and a discussion about possible supplemental standards in the UDO for Data Centers.

If you are interested in really getting into the weeds, you can read the documents filed with the Town by clicking the links below:

New Hill Digital Campus Rezoning Application

Petition for Voluntary Annexation

New Hill Digital Campus UDO Application

In response to the proposal, residents in and around New Hill have launched a well-organized grassroots campaign. The initial community meeting with the developer prompted residents to organize opposition. This mobilization was immediately visible at a recent Apex Town Council meeting, where more than 100 residents, a group wearing red T-shirts to symbolize their unity, filled the chamber to voice their opposition.

A key moment in the protest was the nine-minute speech delivered by Jordan Pointe resident Doug Stewart. Using a wooden birdhouse crafted by his grandfather as a metaphor, Stewart described the community as a “handcrafted” place that is “imperfect, but… built to last,” urging the council members to be the “composers of the Apex orchestra” and protect its future. Beyond this public display, the opposition has established a dedicated website (nodatacenternewhillnc.com), launched a Facebook Group, an online petition that has gathered over 2,000 signatures, and is raising money to hire legal representation.

The community’s opposition is rooted in a comprehensive list of concerns about potential negative impacts, many of which directly counter the developer’s public narrative.

Residents are particularly concerned about the environmental and health consequences of the proposed facility. The plan to install 80 three-megawatt diesel generators has raised alarms about air pollution. These generators would be used during power outages but would also undergo weekly testing. This constant operation would release diesel exhaust, which medical experts have linked to inflammation of the body’s T cells and a higher risk for people with asthma, potentially triggering autoimmune and allergic responses.

A further concern surrounds the developer’s proposed use of treated, nonpotable wastewater for cooling. According to notes from a community meeting with the developer, approximately one-third of the water used by the facility would evaporate. This has led to concerns from residents and experts, such as professor Sarav Arunachalam, who fear “health impacts based upon just a deposition of what gets evaporated and the potential mix of air pollution in the evaporated water”.

A 2024 paper from researchers at the University of California, Riverside, and Caltech found that data centers nationwide could contribute to 600,000 cases of asthma-related symptoms by 2030, with public health costs exceeding $20 billion. People living near data centers have also complained about constant noise, chemical smells, and worsening asthma, with some noting that the noise runs 24/7 and disrupts their sleep. In one case, a resident found sediment coming out of their water faucet and believed it was from a nearby data center.

The developer’s claim that the facility is a “modest user of public facilities” is a point of contention for residents. The project is projected to require 300 megawatts of energy, an amount equivalent to 25 percent of the nearby Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant’s 1 gigawatt output.

Residents fear that while Duke Energy is conducting a feasibility study on the power supply, any required “infrastructure upgrades” will ultimately be funded by the public and passed on to the community in the form of higher electricity bills. After fumbling the electric bills for the past 14 months, that’s probably not a hill the town should try to climb right now.

This financial burden is seen as a key hidden cost that undermines the developer’s economic promises.

Beyond the environmental and financial concerns, residents are worried about the impact on their quality of life. The prospect of a 75-foot industrial building in a rural area is a major aesthetic concern.

Additionally, the facility’s operations could generate constant noise and light pollution, disrupting the peace and tranquility of surrounding communities, including the nearby Jordan Pointe neighborhood. The developer’s plan for a 60-foot buffer has not alleviated these fears.

The debate in Apex is not an isolated incident but a local manifestation of a national trend. Communities across the country are grappling with the same questions about the costs and benefits of hosting large-scale data center developments. The experiences of other towns and counties offer valuable lessons for the Apex Town Council as it weighs its decision.

Loudoun County, Virginia is often cited by data center proponents as a model for success. Known as “Data Center Alley,” the county hosts the world’s largest concentration of data centers. Data shows the industry has been an indisputable fiscal engine, contributing an estimated $890 million annually and generating nearly half of the county’s total tax revenue. This influx of revenue has allowed the county to consistently lower the residential property tax rate, with the rate dropping from $1.285 to $0.805 per 100 dollars in assessed value over a decade. The county government states that for every dollar of services provided to data centers, it receives a return of 26 dollars in tax revenue.

However, this fiscal success has come with significant externalized costs for residents. The Loudoun Climate Project and other groups highlight the significant strain on the local power grid, which has necessitated new, high-voltage transmission lines to be built through residential neighborhoods. These facilities also contribute to air and water pollution through the use of fossil-fuel backup generators and water-intensive cooling systems.

Furthermore, data center developers, who are willing to pay high prices for land, have made it difficult for other businesses to acquire property in the area. The experience in Loudoun County reveals a critical paradox: while a data center can be positive for a city/town/county’s budget, it can simultaneously impose long-term environmental and quality-of-life costs on its citizens. The contradiction demonstrates that “success” for a municipal budget does not automatically translate to a harmonious and sustainable outcome for the community.

The city of Prineville, Oregon, provides a different lens on the impacts of data centers. A 2013 economic report on the Facebook data center in the area highlighted a positive “multiplier effect”. For every 10 direct jobs at the facility, an additional 14 jobs were supported elsewhere in the state. The construction phase alone resulted in a substantial investment of approximately $450 million and created thousands of jobs.

Yet, the project has also strained local resources. One analysis showed that a well on the Facebook site had experienced a 53-foot drop in its water level over a decade. The city, with financial support from tech companies, has had to build a multi-million-dollar aquifer storage and recovery system to manage water supplies.

This costly system injects water underground in the winter for use during the summer, a strategy that biologists warn could still affect natural springs and rivers. The Prineville experience illustrates that even with economic benefits, the environmental consequences of a data center can be profound and costly.

It highlights that mitigation efforts are often reactive measures implemented after problems arise, rather than proactive solutions, and reinforces the need for Apex to demand a thorough, independently verified environmental impact study before any final decision is made.

The experiences of other communities demonstrate that organized opposition can be highly effective. The grassroots campaign in Peculiar, Missouri successfully fought a proposed data center after a contentious public hearing. Following the hearing, the Board of Aldermen voted unanimously to amend zoning ordinances to prohibit data centers, with one alderman publicly stating that he and his colleagues had been “misled by people they trusted“.

In Warrenton, Virginia, residents used their political power to even greater effect. They voted out every town council member who supported a proposed Amazon data center in a local election. The newly elected council, composed entirely of project opponents, now holds the political mandate to block the project.

These successful opposition campaigns share a common thread: a lack of developer transparency that galvanized public sentiment and fueled political action. When government officials sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) that conceal project details from the public, it creates a climate of mistrust that can be a powerful catalyst for a community to organize and demand accountability.

The Apex community’s petition and showing at the last council meeting indicate that residents are already mirroring these successful strategies. But we can’t let up on the gas now!

While data center companies often promise significant job creation, a closer examination of industry trends reveals a more complex reality. Reports indicate that data center job numbers are frequently inflated. In many cases, state and local subsidies do not require a company to create a specific number of jobs, and those that do often require a minimal number, typically 50 or fewer per project. Additionally, many of the jobs created are temporary (construction) or lower-wage roles, such as security, landscaping, and maintenance.

The high-paying construction jobs are often filled by out-of-state contractors who travel from project to project, limiting the economic benefit to the local workforce.

The promised tax revenue also has a hidden cost. While data centers can generate significant real property tax income for localities, as demonstrated by the Loudoun County example, many states, including North Carolina, offer broad and long-term tax exemptions.

These exemptions apply to the most expensive purchases, such as electricity, machinery, and equipment, which are crucial for a data center’s operations. Such subsidies, which can be uncapped and last for decades, can result in a significant net loss of tax revenue for the state, making the overall financial benefit for taxpayers less clear.

Data from global studies provides critical context for the environmental concerns raised by Apex residents. The global energy demands of data centers are staggering, and they are projected to surge significantly, driven by the expansion of AI. A 2022 estimate found that data centers were the world’s 11th largest electricity consumer, and by 2026, that ranking is expected to rise to fifth place.

The water consumption is equally significant. A large data center can consume up to 5 million gallons of water per day, an amount equivalent to the annual water usage of a town of 10,000 to 50,000 people.

Approximately 80 percent of this water, typically freshwater, evaporates during the cooling process. While the developer in Apex has proposed using recirculating nonpotable water, more advanced, truly water-efficient technologies exist, such as liquid immersion cooling, which submerges servers directly in a nonconductive fluid.

These systems are more energy-efficient and can eliminate water waste entirely, but they have a higher upfront capital cost. The decision to use a less advanced cooling method suggests a potential trade-off between the developer’s immediate cost savings and the long-term environmental sustainability of the project for the community.

The selection of the 190-acre site at 4232 Shearon Harris Road appears to be a calculated decision based on its proximity to existing public infrastructure. The property is located adjacent to the Western Wake Regional Water Reclamation Facility, which is jointly owned by the Towns of Apex and Cary, and is only a few miles from the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant.

This proximity allows the developer to rely on pre-existing public utilities for its massive water and power needs. This reliance on public facilities directly contradicts the developer’s claims of being a “modest user of public facilities” and demonstrates a strategic effort to minimize the company’s own capital expenditures by externalizing these costs to the community and its infrastructure.

The core of the debate over data center development is the lack of a comprehensive regulatory framework to govern these facilities, particularly in a state like North Carolina.

This has led many to argue that local and state governments must adopt new policy measures to ensure that data centers are not only economically beneficial, but also environmentally sustainable and respectful of community well-being.

A number of specific policy recommendations and precedents from other jurisdictions are emerging as a blueprint for proactive governance.

A crucial step for local governments is to move away from “by right” zoning for data centers in industrial areas, a practice that can limit community input and oversight.

Instead, all large data centers should be required to obtain a conditional-use or special permit, even in industrial zones. This would trigger public hearings and allow for specific conditions to be placed on the design and scale of a project.

Loudoun County, Virginia, for instance, has already taken steps to make data centers a conditional use rather than a “by right” one, giving the county more control over applications.

To mitigate the visual impact and disruption to neighboring areas, local ordinances could impose building-height and setback limits, such as the 65–80-foot height and 150-foot buffers modeled in Mooresville, NC.

To address the environmental and public health concerns, new regulations could enforce stricter standards on a project’s environmental footprint.

• Noise and Lighting: This includes mandating strict noise limits at property lines (e.g., ≤55 dB(A)) and requiring decibel modeling before approval. Fairfax County, Virginia, now demands that generators be located at least 300 feet from homes or shielded by other buildings.
• Stormwater Management: Local governments could require data centers to install advanced stormwater controls that exceed basic state requirements, such as mandating on-site retention and pre-treatment of runoff from parking lots.
• Water Use and Conservation: To manage the massive water demands, a statewide reporting and management regime could be instituted. Cities and counties could require developers to use reclaimed or recycled water for cooling whenever feasible and could impose caps on potable water withdrawal. In Prineville, Oregon, the city with financial help from tech companies, has built a costly aquifer storage and recovery system to manage water supplies. This underscores the need for developers to contribute to any necessary expansion of municipal water or wastewater capacity. In Tucson, Arizona, city officials signed a non-disclosure agreement for a data center project, but the city council ultimately voted unanimously to reject the plan after it was revealed the developer, Amazon, intended to use drinking water for cooling in a state experiencing a drought.   
• Backup Power Emissions: Regulations could limit diesel generator use and emissions by capping annual runtime (e.g., to the 50 hours allowed by the EPA) and requiring low-NOx engines. While not yet successful, bills in Virginia have proposed disallowing diesel generators for new data centers entirely from 2027 onward.

To prevent the financial burdens of a project from being passed on to the public, a new framework could ensure that data centers bear the full cost of new grid infrastructure.

State legislation could prohibit utilities from charging ordinary customers for data center upgrades, a concept championed in Oregon to prevent shifting electric infrastructure costs to other customers.

At the local level, Apex could require developers to fund and build any needed substations, transformers, or lines.

One case in Oregon showed that four Morrow County officials who voted to give Amazon massive tax breaks were later fined because they owned a stake in a fiber company that was contracted by Amazon to work on the data center. This highlights the potential for conflicts of interest in the approval process.

A key to building public trust is mandating transparency and community oversight. Before a project is approved, developers could be required to submit an impact statement covering projected energy and water use, emissions (noise, air, light), and traffic.

This would be analogous to a full Environmental Impact Statement. In other states, proposed legislation (such as New York’s S.6394) would compel operators to report their actual energy and water usage and require public hearings before any large data center is approved.

Furthermore, all tax incentive and subsidy agreements should be fully disclosed and made contingent on measurable benefits to the community.

The proposed data center presents the Town of Apex with a pivotal decision that will shape the community’s character for decades to come.

The developer’s proposal promises a high-tech, low-impact economic boon, a narrative that has resonated with communities like Loudoun County. However, a deeper analysis of the facts and the experiences of other towns reveals a multitude of potential harms, including environmental degradation, financial burdens, and a decline in quality of life. The opposition in Apex is mirroring the successful strategies of other grassroots movements across the country, highlighting that a lack of transparency and a perception of disregard for community well-being can be powerful motivators for action.

The Apex Town Council faces a critical responsibility. The decision before them is not merely about rezoning a parcel of land; it is about evaluating the full cumulative impact of a project that leverages public infrastructure for private gain.

In my opinion, the council must move beyond the developer’s press releases and consider the documented, long-term costs that have burdened other communities, even those that initially celebrated the economic benefits. Or simply, listen to the community who elected you.

For the community, the path forward is one of continued, informed engagement. To ensure the best outcome, residents should:

• Demand Transparency: Request the public release of the Duke Energy power feasibility study and details of any potential tax agreements or subsidies.
• Engage Politically: Participate in public hearings and submit formal written comments to ensure your concerns are part of the official record. The examples of Warrenton, Virginia, and Peculiar, Missouri, show that dedicated political engagement can directly influence the outcome.
  • Show up to Town Council meetings – even prior to this project being on the agenda. The next one is Tuesday, September 9 at 6pm in Town Hall. Wear all red to signify putting a stop 🛑 to the development.
  • If you can’t make it to a meeting, you can still share your thought with Council by emailing allcouncil@apexnc.org
  • Use your vote this November

The final decision will reflect whether the town prioritizes the preservation of its community character and the well-being of its residents over a singular, high-investment project.

Join this Facebook Group (Protect Wake County Coalition) to stay in the loop, and subscribe to The Peak Weekly for free email updates every Thursday about everything going on in Apex.