01 · Active dispute
Zoning Rules & Litigation
Whether Bradley County's April 2026 data-center restrictions were lawfully adopted and can be enforced against the MidSpan property is now being litigated.
Currently documented
- The County Commission approved the substitute amendment 14-0 on April 20, 2026.
- The rules restrict data centers to I-2 Special Impact Industrial zoning and add 3,000-foot separation requirements.
- SDCL has filed a verified complaint seeking to invalidate or block enforcement of those rules.
Questions requiring evidence
- How will Bradley County answer each procedural and constitutional claim?
- Will the court uphold, invalidate, narrow, or otherwise interpret the April amendment?
- What development rights, if any, vested before the rule change?
Open detailed review →
02 · Evidence needed
Public Process & Prior Government Representations
The case raises questions about what county bodies represented before the land purchase, what the public was told before the April vote, and whether the final substitute amendment received the process required by law.
Currently documented
- The complaint says SDCL relied on a 2022 county planning letter concerning I-1 zoning.
- The March public notice described a proposal involving I-1 General Industrial zoning.
- A materially different substitute was presented and approved at the April 20 meeting, according to the complaint and meeting record.
Questions requiring evidence
- What exactly did county staff and economic-development representatives communicate to SDCL before acquisition?
- What version of the amendment did the Planning Commission formally review and recommend?
- What notice and supporting materials were publicly available before the April 20 vote?
Open detailed review →
03 · Documented concern
School, Residential & Agricultural Proximity
The proposed campus is near Walker Valley High School and surrounding residential or agricultural property, making setbacks, screening, noise, traffic, and emergency planning central project-specific questions.
Currently documented
- Local reporting and the mayor's public remarks place the nearest proposed building at about 1,700 feet from Walker Valley High School.
- Bradley County Schools previously purchased adjacent Lauderdale Memorial Highway property for a future middle school, and reported in September 2026 that the middle-school plan remains active.
- The county's April rules require 3,000-foot separation from schools, residences, churches, and specified zoning districts.
- SDCL says it plans substantial screening and intends to be a good neighbor.
Questions requiring evidence
- What are the final building, generator, substation, cooling, and access-road distances from the school and neighboring properties?
- What independent noise and air-quality modeling exists for normal and emergency operation?
- What school traffic, evacuation, fire-response, and construction-safety analyses have been completed?
Open detailed review →
04 · Partly documented
Power Demand & Grid Infrastructure
MidSpan appears to depend on large grid-supplied electrical capacity rather than River-style onsite generation, but the actual campus load, utility commitments, and upgrade responsibilities are not yet public in the reviewed record.
Currently documented
- The complaint says the property had access to at least 300 MW of high-voltage electric capacity.
- Current reporting distinguishes MidSpan from Project River by noting that MidSpan does not propose River-style onsite power plants.
Questions requiring evidence
- What is the planned initial and full-build electrical load?
- Which utility or TVA arrangements are committed versus preliminary?
- Who pays for substations, transmission upgrades, redundancy, and other project-driven electrical infrastructure?
- What protections prevent project costs from shifting to local ratepayers?
Open detailed review →
05 · Developer claims
Water, Cooling & Wastewater
SDCL says the project is designed for high water efficiency and says it does not plan to draw from the Hiwassee River, but project-specific demand figures and binding limits are not yet in the reviewed source set.
Currently documented
- The complaint cites access to industrial water, wastewater capacity, and potable water.
- SDCL has publicly stated that it does not plan to withdraw water from the Hiwassee River.
- The company describes MidSpan as aiming to be highly water-efficient.
Questions requiring evidence
- What cooling technology will be used in each phase?
- What are average-day, peak-day, and drought-condition water requirements?
- What source will supply process and potable water?
- What wastewater quantity and quality will be produced, and what system will receive it?
Open detailed review →
06 · Evidence needed
Noise, Screening & Backup Generation
The project has made public screening and quiet-operation commitments, but the equipment layout and measurable operating standards needed to evaluate those claims are not yet in the reviewed record.
Currently documented
- SDCL has said the campus would use extensive visual screening, including a landscaped barrier described in reporting as roughly 20 feet high.
- The company publicly describes quiet operation as a project objective.
Questions requiring evidence
- What are the modeled property-line and school-site sound levels?
- How many backup generators are planned, of what type and capacity, and how often will they be tested?
- What screening, lighting, and noise limits would be enforceable rather than voluntary?
Open detailed review →
07 · Open
Taxes, Incentives & Public Cost
Public reporting reviewed so far does not establish the final tax structure, incentives, public infrastructure obligations, or net fiscal effect of Project MidSpan.
Currently documented
- SDCL says its objective is for energy and infrastructure to pay their own way and for project costs not to fall on local households.
- The county has warned that defending the litigation itself could require substantial taxpayer resources.
Questions requiring evidence
- Will the project seek a PILOT, tax abatement, bond financing, grants, or other incentives?
- What local tax revenue is expected under each contemplated structure?
- Who pays for roads, water, sewer, electrical upgrades, emergency services, and long-term maintenance?
- What fiscal assumptions can be independently reviewed before any public agreement is approved?
Open detailed review →
08 · Open
Project Control, End User & Buildout
The landowner and lead developer are identified, but the ultimate operator, tenant, phased buildout, total building area, and final capital investment are not yet established in the reviewed public record.
Currently documented
- SDCL Tennessee Propco LLC is the plaintiff and property-holding entity identified in the lawsuit.
- Sustainable Development Capital has publicly documented experience financing and developing energy-efficiency and data-center energy projects.
Questions requiring evidence
- Who will operate or occupy the data-center campus?
- What is the planned number, size, and phasing of data-center buildings?
- What capital investment and permanent employment are projected, and by whom?
- Would a sale, lease, or transfer change any community commitments or approval conditions?
Open detailed review →
