Good morning.

We're gonna call today's housing, urban development and zoning committee meeting to order.

Madam Clerk, please call the row.

Alderman Cone.

Alderman's Weitzer.

President.

Vice Chair Sonier.

Alderman Browning.

Alderman Aldridge.

Present.

Claire.

Chair Clark Hubbard.

Here.

We have four present.

All right, for present.

We have a quorum.

We're gonna move the agenda around and do the approval of minutes at the end.

So Alderman Ms.

Weisser, you are recognized on Board of Board Bill 49 as the mandate in committee.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and members of the committee.

I appreciate again the time everyone is spending on this bill and data center regulations in general.

Unlike the Alderwoman from the 7th, who always puts together a great presentation.

It's not generally my style to do a PowerPoint, but I did want to make sure that everyone in the room would be able to see the words that I'm saying as well, so there's less confusion afterwards, if any.

So next slide, please.

There have been some information out there about the difference things this bill does and does not do.

So I wanted to create a slide here that has some of those things really expounded upon.

There have been some folks who are saying that this bill bans data centers.

That is not true.

There is no ban of data centers in this bill.

Uh data centers from you know any number of megawatts, uh, even from you know, at zero to five in the micro category, uh, five to up to 30 in the standard category, and then 30 and above in the major category, all have different places in the city that they would be conditionally allowed.

Um what this bill does do is it strives to regulate data centers as a land use.

So the more impactful that land use is, the more requirements that that data center has.

So standard and major data centers use more energy uh than the majority of industrial uses in the city uh to date, which is why there are more requirements on those on those than in the micro level, uh, and as well as fewer places that those can go.

Um it is also true that each data center application would be evaluated on its own merits, which some projects would be approved and some would not.

Uh the application requirements and the renewable energy requirements are all things that each project would have to demonstrate that it can meet, as well as all the reporting requirements and and different um things that are how the data center would be built, how the noise would be dealt with, all of those things will be specific to each project, and each project would be evaluated separately.

So, yes, that would likely mean that some projects would be approved and some would not be approved.

Um that would be um because these are all conditional and they all go through the Board of Public Service.

Uh that is um just the process that has been outlined.

Uh just like uh any other conditional process that happens in the city, there are some projects that you know uh are are permitted conditionally and some that are not, and it would be the same type of project.

Um I know in my experience there have been different times markets have been that are conditionally allowed in certain areas have been approved or not approved, depending on the various conditions of of that specific land use, which is what this bill tries to get at to see whether the project is something that would be a benefit to the city of St.

Uh it is also true in the bill that current data centers are able to continue operation.

Uh there are certain requirements that are triggered, uh certain requirements of of these regulations that are triggered by structural alterations and expansions, those are outlined in the bill.

Uh, we've worked really closely with current data center operators to make sure that everyone understands uh understands the requirements that would be triggered and agrees that they're possible to um implement uh at the uh at the time of this alteration or expansion.

Uh we do have um an amendment that clarifies a few things even further uh at the request of some of the data center operators.

Uh there it is true that this bill does cap this the physical size of data center, 500,000 square feet.

That is currently the only quote unquote cap that exists in the bill.

In the planning commission, there was an attempted amendment uh that I I proposed with the with the support of Alderman Sonier and Christina Ramendia to prohibit uh of the president's office to prohibit major data centers of 30 megawatts and above.

But that amendment failed.

Um, the reason that I I offered that amendment was because of my concern of uh the you know large expansion of the type of land that we currently see with data centers, which in the city of St.

Louis, with the exception of one that is being built, are all under 10 megawatts.

And we we know that that is a um, you know, we we know that they're operating.

Uh we we understand that there are certain requirements that should be put on on new data centers and triggered with certain requirements are met.

Uh but once it gets to that 30 megawatt and above category, I still believe that it's not something that should be uh permitted in the city at this time because of the impact of the land use.

Uh but again, that failed at the planning commission, and it doesn't seem to have the votes of the Board of Alderman at this time.

Um it is also true that there are renewable energy requirements in this bill for standard and major data centers.

Uh, some have said that the renewable energy requirements are creating a de facto ban or a ban by another, and the micro data centers are not impacted by the renewable energy requirement.

So that's simply false just from the onset because micro data centers would not have to meet that.

And then the standard in major data centers could be anything from five megawatts all the way up to a much higher megawatt threshold.

I understand that there are some difficulties associated with meeting renewable energy requirements, um, but we also know that in order to serve this need, the electric service provider will have to build out um pretty significant capacity within their grid to serve the need, no matter what type of energy that is.

Every single type of energy that is created uh in the the service region does have to be approved by the public service commission.

So to say that the renewable type of uh energy is not possible, but other kinds are, even though it goes through the same process, just uh feels um like not a logical conclusion to reach.

Uh next, please.

So after the last meeting, there was concern uh and desire among um supporters and people who don't support the bill to have further conversations with AMRIN with the electric service provider.

I want to say again that the city cannot regulate Amran.

The city cannot regulate Amory and it cannot tell Amran what to do.

That is the role of the public service commission.

Uh, but what the city can do is try to provide zoning regulations that meet the comprehensive plan, which includes a sustainability plan as well as the land use plan.

Uh, those are things that are adopted by the city of St.

Louis and meant to be followed.

Um, if they aren't followed, they're just words on a piece of paper, and they don't actually uh result in impacts and um results really for our our constituents.

Um, because this land use is so different in that standard and major category, again, beginning at five megawatts and continuing on to the major category over 30.

Um, that's why there are renewable energy requirements in this bill.

Uh, the renewable energy requirements were first put in place in these regulations by in the staff recommendations, which had a 10-year goal or sorry, threshold, not goal.

Um, then in subsequent conversations, trying to show that there is progress towards that threshold at year five, and also at day one, that the data centers are meeting some amount of renewable.

Um this is because we have those plans, because we have those goals, uh, as a pro the presentation that was given by our sustainability director regarding um the city's um progress toward towards those goals, and it shows that yes, the city is progressing towards using more energy or less energy, but this would really change that that um that curve for the city if uh data centers are permitted at these standard and major sizes without having uh really intentional and clear renewable energy goals or thresholds rather.

So, in speaking with Amarin, they gave a lot of additional feedback.

One is that at entry at day one, that the combination of unbundled and bundle recs is more feasible for the day one requirement.

Um the difference between bundled and unbundled recs is is important.

Um bundled recs is the renewable energy that is both generated and a credit that is purchased uh by the customer.

Whereas unbundled is saying that there is renewable energy that exists and the credit for it is being purchased by the customer.

So again, with that curve and the goal of us actually uh reducing our reliance in the city of St.

Louis on this uh unsustainable energy sources, that's why that bundled rec is so important, because it does come with both the actual production of renewable energy and the credit for it.

Um but because day one operation won't have been uh planned for as much as year five and year 10.

Uh it would be possible to I have an amendment today uh to make the year the day one requirement, that combination of bundled and unbundled uh as flexible as possible for that day one requirement.

They also gave feedback that consistency throughout the requirement helps make it easier to administer.

So for the year five, instead of having a 50% requirement that can be at most 12% at most of the full requirement can be 12.5%.

We're upping that number to 25% of unbundled if the amendment passes today to allow for that you know 25% unbundled possibility to carry through from day one all the way through to year 10 to allow for that flexibility within the requirement while also keeping the consistency in the requirement that it's 25% at most unbundled from day one all the way through to year 10.

Amorin gave feedback that they would prefer that the city use the state's definition of renewable energy, but that definition includes a lot of types of energy production, which the city does not consider uh sustainable or renewable, uh, which is not considered sustainable and to meet its sustainability goals.

For example, burning trash, meth the methane produced, um, and some other ones that we didn't want to mess with.

Um so that is why we're keeping the renewable energy definition as we have it.

Um they also had would prefer that the city just has uh does not discriminate between bundled and unbundled recs, uh, even at year 10.

Um but as I explained, for the city to meet its sustainability goals, the city needs to be thoughtful about the land use of data centers and make sure that the energy that's actually used to power the data center is uh bundled with that actual production of renewable energy and not unbundled with the actual production of renewable energy.

So that is why it is still as it is in year 10 with 75% bundled, 25% unbundled.

Um the other piece that is not I'm not recommending that we change is leaving a you know the possibility for a waiver at year five, which allows an extension to meet the the threshold at year five to make sure that if there's any unforeseen issue, that there is time before the penalties kick in if they're not meeting their renewable energy goals.

This does create a penalty system, not a closure system if the thresholds aren't met.

Uh you know, this is really the point, the part of the regulation where the city has the ability to have have some teeth and know that these renewables, uh the renewable energy generation for this use will be met.

Uh, so I'm not really interested in in further weakening that language besides what uh we'll talk about in a little bit.

Next, please.

So uh, you know, one of the things about this bill is there's a lot of uh public interest in it.

So public comment stakeholder engagement keeps happening.

Uh so as I said, there are some amendments that I hope to offer today.

Um, but one of them is addressing uh Amorin's concerns regarding consistency, again, that keeping that 25% unbundled consistent throughout the regulations, um, amending the day one requirement for that full flexibility between bundled and unbundled recs, um, and then the specific language about how bundled recs can be obtained, which is Amir uh language that Amran uh provided.

Uh so address some of the concerns that current data center operators have brought up about just clarity of language and then to address concerns about who is providing the baseline noise level measurement.

Right now it just says the base level noise uh at application needs to be provided, but try uh adding some some language to make that a third-party professional providing that information at application.

My goal is to vote this out of committee today with these additional recommendations or amendments.

Uh, and then next in the bill, the planning commission meets tomorrow, uh, it is on their agenda to discuss this this topic.

And uh as of the staff report that came out on Friday after our amendments last week, the staff has recommended the planning commission approve the amendments that have been made.

And I think that's really important.

Um, we want to make sure that this is you know in alignment with those comprehensive plans or sustainability plan or landing plan, and at this time, staff has recommended that the amendments that have been made be approved by the planning commission, which then allows the Board of Alderman to pass this bill with a simple majority and not have to make any further changes based on what the planning commission said.

You know, if there are amendments made today that may require a separate meeting from the planning commission, um, but I also imagine that they'll meet and discuss it after perfection as well, or at least um you know, before we after the bill leaves committee, either way.

Um Friday, if this bill passes from committee today, the bill would be second read and no further discussion would be had.

Uh, the president of the board has already committed to additional board of aldering meetings during the summer recess to pass these regulations within the few weeks.

Um, so I understand that if the bill leaves committee today, which again I my hope is that it does, um, that members of the board who are not on this committee may want some additional time um to to learn more and not have to make any votes this coming Friday, since additional meetings are already being scheduled.

So I that's that's my presentation, and I would love to hear from the public.

I do have in this presentation all of the amendments that we'll be discussing today, uh, as possible to bring up on the screen.

So when we're going through them, that anyone in the room would also be able to read the text of the amendment uh in case they don't have printed copies, um, which I believe are passed out last week.

Um so I'm happy to take any questions now, and I know we have a lot of members of the public to speak, so I I'll leave it to you, uh, Madam Chairwin for next steps here.

Is Alderman Collin online yet, Madame Claire?

Yes, he is.

Okay.

Alderman called making sure you're here and to ask for questions before we go into public comment.

Does anyone have any questions at the dias before we go into public comment?

Just want to make sure that um if you're in the room and you wanted to speak, you signed up uh on the sheet here, so I can swear everybody in at the same time.

And if you're online and signed up to speak, if you can turn your cameras on, we can um go ahead and swear you in as well.

So right now we only have one online, madam clerk.

Yes, okay.

That's one.

Okay.

If everyone can raise your right hand that's gonna speak and swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

All right, madam clerk is gonna call your name up.

When you come up, you can speak your name, your ward, or your affiliation, and then proceed with your testimony.

Thank you.

Adolphus Pruitt in opposition.

Good morning, ma'am.

Chair.

My name is Adolphus Pruitt, President St.

Louis City NACP.

I live in Ward 9 and offices or in 10.

Um everything that I'm going to reference, uh, you can fact check as relates to the document I'm passing out.

I want to paint a picture as to why we are in opposition of this bill as it is written.

The um the largest cohort of the city that that is also happened to be the largest cohort that makes up the prime labor force for the city is between the ages of 25 and 34.

And they make up uh they are the largest population segment of the city, and 19% of them are African American.

Uh let's be clear.

African American unemployment in the city of St.

Louis is at 13%.

For whites in the city of St.

Louis is at seven percent.

In addition, the second largest cohort, other than the seniors is going to be between the ages of 18 and 34.

These are the individuals that are going to be moving to the workforce.

Um, it is happened to be the poorest, the poorest segment of the population in the city of St.

Louis right now.

Uh the second poorest is gonna cause the seniors that are 65 and older.

It's also be clear that when we talk about net worth, the net worth of the white population in the city of St.

Louis is a little bit more than 100,000.

For African Americans outside of equity and real estate is 8,000.

8,000.

When we talk about what the jobs in the future are going to look like, those that are going to require a minimum of some sort of AI certification is going to be somewhere positions.

We're not talking about the actual people in them.

The positions themselves are going to be somewhere between two to six thousand.

As of 2025, that was a little bit more than 35 according to Tech STL, 35,000 positions that were open in the city of St.

Louis that require some sort of AI certification.

The ironic thing is that we have a long-term revenue advisory council for the city.

And far as we've been able to tell, uh their one of their jobs is look at how revenue streams in the city are going to sustain themselves and have sustain the city in the long run.

So you have a long-term advisory council to look at the revenue stream for the city of St.

Louis to sustain it.

And the subject we're talking about today has not been a party of that conversation.

It's not even in the plan.

But all data centers are not dirty.

The other thing that we found that even more interesting is that we haven't seen any projections as relates to how many potential data centers and their revenue projection over the long run, the potential to come from the city.

See, the bottom line is this is that the population that I represent the most are the ones who are the poorest, the least employed, and they make up a vast majority of the workforce that the city's gonna need in the future.

And that is no revenue source dedicated to making sure that they get the training necessary so they can participate in the economy that we're gonna have in the future.

And that economy is gonna be driven by AI, whether we like it or not.

This bill doesn't do anything to address those individuals.

Those individuals are young, 18 to 24, 24 to 35.

They are here, and their opportunities are nil.

And this bill isn't doing anything but blocking the potential funding sources that they can use to provide them the training they need so they can participate in the workforce.

And we're not talking, we talk about even in some cases the existing workforce.

Those 35,000 jobs that require AI certification that exists today, they don't have an opportunity to even go after it over.

So this bill is not ready.

I hear this language about it's not a uh a ban on data centers, but it doesn't have to say ban in order to have the same effect.

Madam Chairman, members of the committee, I appreciate the time.

And if you have any questions, we'll love to answer them, especially as it relates to the folks who are the most vulnerable who are not included in this discussion at all.

Our next speaker is I don't want Swissa has a question for Mr.

Dolphus Breward.

Uh thank you so much for being here.

Um, the zoning, we've discussed a few different times about whether there is any place in this or in these in this bill for you know workforce development uh issues that you bring up.

Uh and there is a desire to have an additional bill uh about the the workforce development requirements for the use.

It's just not something to put in a zoning regulation bill.

Um so I appreciate those comments and how important that is.

So to you being here today.

What I've learned about the legislative process is that if it's something we've gonna we need to deal with, and there's legislation on the table now that can address it, it can be inserted in there, let's put it in there.

The same thing, no, it kills me.

You're saying that somebody's poisoning me or killing the planet by using excess energy and water.

There are many industries in the city of St.

Louis that are far exceeding that.

Yet we're not doing anything to regulate them.

Let's put them in this bill.

If we're gonna deal with the issue of saving the planet, let's save it.

We we don't have to skip over them and come back to them later.

We got legislation now.

We can include it in here now.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kathleen Logan online.

Hello, I want to um I'm with the I'm in the seventh ward, and I've been following this process since October.

And I want to thank Anne Schweitzer and Alicia Sonier for all their hard work, and for everyone else who came to the table, um, we've had all the developers at the table, we've had Amran at the table, and it's been a legislative process.

We've had Amran at the table, and it's been a legislative process.

It's been a genuine legislative process.

And the only thing that need that could make this bill better is if you included the public and the right to consent into this process.

But for what it is, it's been well done.

It's been extremely thorough.

And it's been inclusive.

And I'm appreciative of that.

I look forward to working with Mr.

Pruitt on some workforce development issues because that is critical in a city.

We need a livable city.

We need a livable economy, and we need an economy that's based on life and health in the future and not something different than that.

So that's all I have today.

I will get any particular concerns in writing.

I really appreciate the commitment to the sustainability plan and to the city's definition of renewables because it makes more sense than just throwing anything in there.

Um that's uh like the state does.

And I think it's important for us to decide what kind of city we want to be, and then to start living into that.

And I appreciate the leadership's commitment to that.

So thank you.

Our next speaker is Elise Schaeffer in support.

Good morning.

Thank you, Chairwoman, again for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Ali Schaefer.

I'm with Zuri Cold The Environment and resident of the sixth ward.

Uh, speaking again this morning in support of the regulations.

There have been a lot of changes to the renewable requirements, um, specifically to make them easier for companies to meet.

I was glad to hear the alderwoman speak more directly about that this morning.

And I just want to reassure you that the thresholds laid out in this bill are more than generous for companies to meet.

Um, they're absolutely feasible.

I'll share some statistics with you.

Um, on average, it takes about 18 months for new wind generation to be built, uh, and six to fifteen months for new solar to be built, and that's utility scale solar.

Elsewhere, we're seeing data centers taking three to six years to come online.

So the requirements as they're laid out in the bill are absolutely achievable.

And that's not to mention the fact that new generation is gonna have to be built no matter what type of energy it is.

New gas plants on average take 24 months to build, and that's if your gas turbine is not on back order, which most of them are right now.

I also want to reassure you that strict renewable requirements are the best possible outcome for St.

Louis City residents, and that's not even getting into the environmental sustainability side of things, the pollution that would be saved by these requirements.

Uh economically, we're looking at utility-scale solar costing about $58 per megawatt hour, wind about $61 per megawatt hour.

Gas, depending on the type of plant that you're building, is between 78 and 200 per megawatt hour.

Coal is 122 dollars per megawatt hour, and nuclear is 180 dollars per megawatt hour.

Nuclear didn't even talk about the time frame there.

That's like an 84-month new bill timeline for nuclear.

And our governor has made it very clear that's his intention to build out nuclear at the state level.

The renewable regulations as they are in front of you today represent months and months and months of good faith negotiation on the part of the alders who serve planning commission, who have been trying to make this bill work for the residents and for the city as a whole.

MCE, me personally, would love to see even a higher renewable threshold, but we're very pleased to see the work that has gone into what getting these where they are today.

We need regulations in place right now.

All you have to do is look at the armory site to see the huge public backlash against uh development that doesn't have guardrails in place to move it forward in a way that benefits the entire city.

So um thank you so much to this committee for their time.

I hope you will support these regulations moving forward.

Thank you so much.

Ryan DeBoel.

Uh hi, my name is Ryan uh Ryan Deeble.

I live in a county, but I work in Ward 10.

Um I'm also an organizer with the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

It has been said in this room that nobody gets exactly what they want.

We have to make compromises, but what are you compromising and who are you compromising to?

It is not the developers at sacrifice.

It is not the wealthy few that profit off of our labor until our bodies are bruised and broken.

It is not Amran, it is not Amazon, it is not Google.

It is not these utility corporations and mega or make corporations and utility monopolies that push for these data centers that that sacrifice.

It's the working class that is shafted and made to pay the cost for it every time.

If these regulations are not passed today, you will be compromising the health and safety of the working class or the grain for the gain of greedy capitalists who would be more than happy to ruin the livability of the city if it meant they made a couple bucks.

Our electricity bills are projected to rise upwards of 40%.

Gas prices are up due to war in Iran.

The genocide in Palestine is ongoing.

Our tax dollars pay for that as well.

The cost of living crisis is skyrocketing and is currently unsustainable.

These regulations must be passed today before more of these data centers are approved with no oversight.

I should make it clear we do not want data centers in St.

Louis, period.

We want stricter regulations.

We want clean water, clean air.

Remember, this is the asthma capital of the country.

And we want the public to be included in deciding whether or not we want these data centers here.

Pass the regulations.

Abby Gunther online.

Hello.

Um thank you so much to the committee.

Thank you to Alderwoman Schweitzer and Otterwoman Sony.

Um I just want to, you know, echo the past few comments.

I think it's really, really important we have regulations in place as soon as possible.

Um, it's been a very long process.

And if data center projects like the armory can get approved in the meantime, then we need regulations.

It's just like you can't have it both ways.

So yeah, please I urge you to pass these subcommittee.

Thank you.

Miss Roslin Addison.

Good morning.

Um everybody there.

I feel like I'm in church or somewhere and do a speech.

So to the poor pit.

How about that?

Um, my name is Rossin Addison, and my order person is Jamie Cox, and I'm in the eighth ward, Seoul area.

I'm just gonna read mine, and bear with me.

Truth about the past, present, and future.

The past, one of the greatest, one of the largest structures of St.

Missouri was a Mil Creek Valley district that's supposed to be in the slums, urban renewal development.

The past, there is much needed new development in North and West St.

Louis, Missouri, after the heavy crack cocaine era.

The past.

No new housing and businesses were developed for the urban constituents in a mill creek valley.

The present, excuse me.

The land has universities, law enforcement center, sports entertainments, top golf and soccer, target store, apartments, and restaurants.

The present North and West St.

Louis, Missouri look like the so-called slums of the 50 and 60s, but no plans for urban renewal development.

The present, some people are talking about developing the data center.

Well, so many people need help after the severe tornado devastation in North and West St.

Louis, Missouri.

So many people are suffering in more ways than one, and searching for stability.

Many people in that region will be forced out because they have no control of their dwelling.

Many homes, businesses, churches, schools, and small food marks have been destroyed.

The future.

Building the data center is just what it says.

Data, your data to regulate and center the place to store your data.

This could be a form of intimate domain.

It could be.

Some have to pouch as an app to avoid the cause.

Others just don't ask to the number that they don't recognize.

I wonder if this is coming from various data centers from the nation.

This small action is very, very, very annoying.

Just think how much more such actions can interrupt your piece of mine with a data center.

As my sister said rest her soul.

Don't make your move too soon.

Help the people, and the people will help the land.

I say righteousness leads.

Peace, love, and joy follows.

Ross and Addison, July the 7th, 2026.

Thank you for listening.

God bless us all.

And I yield a floor.

Peace to you.

Maxine Giel.

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Maxine Gill, and I work for Missouri Coalition for the Environment, and I'm a resident of the Sixth Ward.

Thank you to the committee for considering these updated regulations and for all the work that's gone into these.

We hope today is the day we passed regulations in order to have something on the books to mitigate a subset of the harms imposed by AI-driven hyperscale data centers.

70% of Americans, the vast majority across all demographics, are opposed to the local construction of data centers.

The St.

Louisans who have shown up again and again at every possible public comment opportunity to register our dissent are no different.

It is true that St.

Louis needs employment opportunities and tax revenue, but residents know that the costs of the proliferation of AI data centers outweigh these benefits and know that other avenues to achieve employment and city revenue are more valuable than data centers.

Data center construction comes at the cost of air pollution, noise pollution, PFAS, and other contamination and water, extreme heat, and rising utility rates.

Like many cities, St.

Louis's legacy of redlining has pushed industrial areas next to predominantly black neighborhoods, meaning that black community members will experience the brunt of harm from future data center development in industrial areas, exacerbating existing health disparities.

If we are to be truly accountable to the St.

Louis community and take seriously the existential threat that AI poses, not only to the environment, but to human labor, art, expression, privacy, and due process, the city would add a community consent mechanism to AI data centers.

I will hone in on the renewable energy requirements in this testimony, but we at MCE want to first echo other community members and asking for that mechanism to be added to the regulations, similar to that for liquor stores in the city.

We hope you will vote today to pass these regulations as a starting point to build on.

In prior hearings, those opposing these regulations have stated that these renewable energy requirements are akin to a ban on data, but this is far from the case.

These regulations ask for 25% of a facility's total energy capacity to come from renewable energy sources on its first day of operation.

This requirement can either be met with on-site, other behind-the-meter generation, or power from the utility service territory.

But today, today's amendment adds a new compliance pathway, allowing this requirement to be met through unbundled racks from elsewhere in the MISO region.

As my colleague mentioned, new solar projects take an average of six to 15 months to come online.

And though approval processes may delay that timeline, ultimately, solar and wind are the fastest and cheapest form of energy generation to develop.

New data centers take three to six years to come online.

So if new solar is built concurrently with the data center, absent the new unbundled rec compliance options, this requirement isn't is entirely feasible to meet.

Adding an unbundled compliance pathway to meet the 25% upfront clean energy generation requirement is additionally generous to the data center developers as it allows them to meet this requirement using existing clean energy resources elsewhere in the MISA region.

Adding this cushion also eases compliance for the five and 10-year renewable energy benchmarks, as all involved parties will be able to take the time needed for data center construction to ramp up renewable generation.

I guess all I can pause there.

Okay.

Amran is able and indeed does track where racks come from in the case of solar recks and the solutions program auction.

And no matter what, Amran will have to build new power to support an influx of data centers in the service territory.

In fact, they're already building several new gas peaking plants in the area, including the Castle Bluff Energy Center, Big Hollow Energy Center, and Pinot Creek Energy Center.

Um, for those are 800 megawatts, 800 megawatts, and then 250 megawatts respectively.

That natural gas is more costly and takes longer to develop than solar projects.

So if energy is going to have to be added to meet a significant ramp up in energy demand, specifying that that renew that that comes from renewable generation is not unreasonable for them.

So we urge you to please pass these regulations.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Eddie Schmidt.

Hello, uh, my name is Eddie Schmid, and uh I want to thank you for the opportunity to address the City Board of Alderman.

And I want it to be go on record that I support this bill.

Uh I know you're working hard, and uh we appreciate that.

It shouldn't just be rammed through.

So uh I also want to go on record that I'm completely and totally opposed to any data center that is not regulated by guidelines that to protect the public from you know negative aspects of AI, which are include manipulation of the uh the public.

And um and I agree, I'm I'm glad you're putting in uh regulations for renewable energy.

Uh that that's pretty important.

Uh our utilities are bad enough, and uh cost of living for the average people is pretty bad.

And you could use uh the AI center in Tennessee that uh oh who is it?

The uh mega rich man put up down there, and that's polluting the area.

And anyway, there's a lot of negativities too.

So uh I just appreciate you uh giving us the opportunity to speak.

So I I'm not as eloquent as the other speakers, but uh we uh we know that there's there's not gonna be much good come of this unless it's regulated.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jackie Schmidt.

Good day, committee members.

My name is Jackie Schmid, and I live in Ward 7.

I appreciate this opportunity to voice voice my opinion opinion as a St.

Louis resident.

I support and urge you to support this bill, and I'm going to share reasons why where I'm coming from for that support.

Info is readily available on the pros and mostly cons to the AI data centers.

It is regularly in the news how these centers are being pushed on communities, mostly poor and communities of color across the country.

In the future, data centers might be helpful and be ran responsibly for the good of all, but we are not there yet.

And these centers are largely built in spite of the majority of people opposing them, like here.

I'm requesting two things.

Strong guidelines be put in place to protect residents from pollution and high tax and energy bills, and two, the communities have a say on the building of these centers near their homes.

I would also like to add the mayor's made it obvious that she is not acting in the best interest for the people of St.

Louis.

I thank those Alder persons who are sincerely trying to help the residents of St.

Louis.

We need you to do this.

Please pass BB49AA.

Thank you.

Mr.

Dave Sweeney.

I live and work in the city of St.

Louis.

Uh I'm gonna start real quick about um just how heightened this has become, and when there's insults being yelled at me from people that I think I'm respectful to, it's really disappointing.

And being called a climate change denier, you don't know me, or I thought you did.

I don't mind being yelled at by trolls on the internet.

I'll probably get more today, and that's fine.

But that process has been really unfortunate.

Um there's 100% that this is not a ban for micro for the micro.

However, it clearly is very quote, difficult for a major data center to operate.

These are not goals, which were referred to, these are requirements.

And as everyone that I stand before knows, that's a huge difference.

And to call them goals or expectations is clearly not true.

And I appreciate the sponsor pointing out that she and two others tried to ban major data centers, and it failed.

Three to the entire uh commission.

However, this continues to make it impossible.

I know people don't believe Amran, don't believe other people that are experts on this, but when folks, they're the ones, and everyone is clear, they're the ones that can do it or not do it.

And unless they say we can 100% do this, no business is going to invest the type of money, and that's clearly the goal.

It's just not gonna happen.

And if that's the goal, kudos, because it'll clearly not happen.

Um I appreciate the work you've done with other stakeholders, the current data centers, you know, as rightly so.

They worked and then the bill's been amended and and and they're in support now, and that's fantastic.

But one of the speakers said that the developers have been at the table.

That's 100% false.

100%.

No one has asked what a potential developer with the business can here.

We're not the right, we're not the good guys here.

We're not at the table.

So that is not true.

And this no requirements.

No one in all of these meetings has said there should be no requirements on ever.

Period.

Everyone has said the opposite.

There should be requirements, but requirements that work and that work for all parties and make it possible.

I simply want to say that this is a very, very, very complicated bill.

There's more amendments coming in today that some people have seen because they've talked on them.

The public hasn't.

I haven't, but we're gonna vote on that today.

And I'm not here to I know there's gonna be extra meetings, and that's fantastic.

And I appreciate regulations, but all stakeholders should have a say, or and if you disagree, then so be it.

But to act like this has been a wide open process is simply not true.

So thank you for your time.

Casey Fowler Flynn.

Hi, I'm Dr.

Casey Fowler Finn, Ward 6 resident, professor of biology at university since 2014.

I've studied the science of sound for 25 years with 22 years of nearly continuous funding from the National Science Foundation.

I don't speak on behalf of my institution or funding agency, but I'm testifying in my capacity as an expert on how noise, including anthropogenetic or human-generated noise, affects animal communication and signaling.

And my work requires me to have a deep understanding of the physics of sound as well as its impacts on the behavior and physiology of animals.

Noise is a major human health concern and consistently one of the top three concerns cited in data center opposition.

In Virginia, the largest data center market in the country, residents near existing facilities cite noise as leaving their homes.

More generally, a U.S.

Census Bureau survey found that millions of households consider environmental noise bob and severe enough that they want to relocate.

Noise produced by data centers is not like noise from an ordinary industrial installations.

It therefore requires careful legislation designed to address the low frequency noise that they produce.

Noise attenuates or dampens through two mechanisms.

Geometric spreading, the further away it is acquired it.

And that applies to all frequencies.

The second mechanism is absorption, by which sound dams it dampens as it absorbed by air particles, the ground and solid objects like the second mechanism is the one that sound mitigation features target.

And absorption works great for high frequency noise, but it is ineffective for low frequency noise because low frequency sound travels through and bends around solid objects.

Enclosures built for ordinary industrial noise perform very poorly at low frequency.

To give an example, to meaningfully absorb a 20 hertz sound wave, which is characteristic of data centers.

You need roughly 14 feet of acoustic material.

This is clearly not realistic for a building enclosure.

So the low frequency noise that is the hallmark of data centers remains louder and travels further than other types of industrial.

The wind turbine uh literature shows measurable low frequency increase 1,600 feet from the source.

That's triple the 600 set uh foot setback in uh Board Bill 49.

Data center noise has been documented to be audible up to two miles, and in one study, two and a half miles, with the greatest impacts concentrated with within 3,000 feet.

That's five times the current setback in Board Bill 49.

In short, the setback specifications in this bill do not work for the physics of the noise that data centers actually produce.

The World Health Organization thresholds for negative population level impacts from environmental noise are already being exceeded nightly at typical data center property lines, at which noise is commonly measured between 55 and 65 dBA versus the World Health Organization's 50 dB nighttime threshold.

Exceeding these thresholds leads to negative effects for cardiovascular risk, sleep disruption, and cognitive effects in children, regardless of what frequency range of noise humans are exposed to.

Excuse me.

There are several ways that this bill can be changed to properly protect residents.

Right now, it measures noise only using DBA and DBC, two metrics not designed to capture the low frequency range of noise produced by data centers.

DBC does capture some of the lower frequencies.

It performs best from 63 to 8,000 Hertz, but it falls short in two ways.

First, it fails to approximate appropriately capture the loudness of noise below 63 Hz, which is where a lot of that troublesome noise from data center sits.

Second, a DBC measurement is taken over the entire range of frequencies.

And that means that the DBC measurement can look completely unremarkable and hide a particularly loud and disruptive low low tone noise that is louder than all the frequencies around it.

The literature points to some time.

Can I finish my last paragraph, please?

The literature points to some key improvements to this bill if we were to properly protect residents.

I've submitted a written fact sheet full of citations.

I've printed out some here if people want them.

Specific section by section amendments and proposed bill language for each summarize here.

Noise measurements need to either be G-rated or octave band measurements, which are totally feasible and uh unremarkable in terms of cost.

Um, these are designed to detect those loud bands of noise and low frequencies that the DBA and DBC metrics miss.

The setbacks need to be wider to match the actual propagation data for the type of noise data centers use, and the measurement should be conducted by a city selected applicant funded engineer, both before and after construction and not self-reported by the developer.

Additionally, the bill needs a specific complaint triggered retesting mechanism with clear follow-up for failing to meet specifications.

Finally, Board Bill 49 needs a nighttime specific ceiling.

This bill can protect residents, but only if it measures the noise that it's actually going to reach them.

Our next speaker is Carrie McCullin's.

Good morning, Carrie McCullin Ward 2 with the Eco Socialist Green Party.

Good morning, Madam Chair, woman, HUDS Committee, and members of the public.

Data centers are being forced onto residents of St.

Louis who have already said no.

The City of St.

Louis has taken our right to consent from us.

This is violence.

While I appreciate the many months of work and collaboration that has gone into these regulations, Alderwoman Sonier is correct in saying the city is not to be trusted when it comes to data centers, as the armory data center approval was rammed through before regulations were in place.

We, the residents and community builders, are worried the developers could put in another hyperscale proposal before regulations.

As we know from a May Planning Commission testimony, they were already eyeing and targeting the North Side next in the 13th ward specifically.

Multiple active appeals have been filed to contest the approval of the armory data center, because instead of listening to residents, the city decided to side with large load customers or stakeholders and entities that will extract from us.

Entities like Amran, whose CEO made 14 million dollars last year and will hugely profit from even one 100 megawatt data center, putting the burden of tens of millions of dollars onto residents due to upgrades to the grid.

Entities like these wannabe billionaires on an unelected dev brow who do not have residents' best interest in mind, who have their heads in the sand and don't even believe or care that climate change is real and people will die from these data centers.

These gross, to put it nicely, Sam Altman, Peter Thiel, and Trump wannabes who don't believe in consent, who demand monopolies, who worship money as their god and their religion is advocating for the common bad.

And not only do I think dev broe are bullying St.

Louis Alderman and the city of St.

Louis, but I think there's some bullies on the board of aldermen as caught on a hot mic moment last week with a certain alder, my alder, telling another alder before the Rams money vote, you got the votes for this, so don't F this up.

We need bravery and dissent against these forceful bullies now more than ever, because no matter what the headlines will say during and after these hearings about how the BOA votes, those of us who have been paying attention to this will remember who advocating who advocated for the consent of residents against these forceful bullies and who obstructed the process and sided with dev broe and outside entity.

ESGP has an active mass following, as do other organizations.

We have 14,000 petition signature contacts to mobilize and take further action with.

And I find it fascinating that while the armory data center was rushed through before regulations, the reverse is happening with these regulations.

There's urgency to approve hyperscales, but there's a delay on passing the regulations.

This is not helping the public trusting, especially coming from two alders with active campaigns sinking re-election for a new or a new seat in office.

As I said last week, don't take your voters for granted.

Thank you.

My name is Sylvia Cuny.

I live in Ward 5.

Twenty years ago, I graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and moved to St.

Louis for work.

Over 20 years, I've gotten to know all of my neighbors pretty well.

We talk about the hyperscale data center boom and the destruction we've seen in other communities.

And we worry about what that could mean for our community.

Over the years as an engineer, I've held lots of technical titles and roles.

Oftentimes I've been brought into situations where something was built with corners cut, and we need to engineer a solution.

The cost of fixing a system after the fact is always higher than if it had been built correctly in the first place.

In the case of a data center, those costs are not just monetary.

Those costs could also include health effects to the people of the community and the community decline.

That is why it is important to pass these regulations today.

We are going to have hyperscale data centers in our community.

Let's ensure they are at least built responsibly.

As others have said, there are many ways that this regulations could be better.

And I agree with all of them.

But no regulations is just not as a safe option.

I am urging you, on behalf of all my neighbors who could not be here today, who could not get out of work to be here today to please pass these regulations for the sake of all of our communities.

Could they be better?

Yes.

But we have to start somewhere.

And I hope it starts today.

Thank you.

Thank you, madam chairwoman, members of the committee.

My name is Joe Delay.

I've owned businesses both in Wards 4 and 6.

And I do have a master's in public policy, so I've been to all these meetings.

I've been fouling them.

And I think everybody here realizes that there needs to be some type of regulation.

But the current way the bill is written on these bundled sources of renewable energy credits is not possible, Amhern has said that.

At five years, you're supposed to have 25% from bundled sources, and it's 75% at 10 years.

Amran has said that they don't have the capacity to do that.

Okay.

And you can't force Amran to develop more renewable energy.

I think everybody sees the benefit of renewable.

But in the real scope of things, you can't force Amor into if they don't see that it's financially feasible, they're not going to do it.

And with the current administration in office now, there is not a financial incentive for newable energy.

So I think it's a terrible public policy to make a requirement that's not possible to satisfy.

I think anybody would agree with that.

And none of us, none of us can regulate Amran because they're uh regulated by the public service commission.

Uh and when I think we all want to do what's right for the community.

And when I heard Mr.

Pruitt here speaker earlier, who knows the disadvantaged community better than him?

And he understands that AI is the future.

So we need to have responsible, responsible uh regulations, and the current bill does not have that.

And I would ask that that bill be held up, not passed out today for more consultation so we can find a workable form as Mr.

Pruitt indicated.

Thank you.

Lewis Hamilton.

Good afternoon, Madam Chairman.

Chairwoman, excuse me.

Uh I'm Lewis Hamilton, a resident of the eighth ward, and I'm here uh to speak uh on behalf of or in favor of the bill as it might be amended today.

Had to think about sequence.

Uh particularly uh section 2677 050.

There's a slight tweak in the language uh that we received from the sponsor this morning, and I think if I understand correctly, they're cleaning that up one more time.

Uh and and with that said, if there are no further changes beyond that tweak, I can say that uh my client, the Globe Democrat Building and the coalition of the existing data centers are okay with this.

That's it.

Have you seen the so you're saying that just so I'm clear because you said it on a record?

You're saying that you are okay with the amendment that she has put forth.

Right.

I I uh the older woman uh sent me a copy of the the final text this morning about nine o'clock.

I I believe there's another like one or two-word tweak that's coming from planning over your way if you haven't gotten it already.

And if that is the only change in the document I saw this morning, then we're fine with this with this language.

But we just need to find out if the tweak is it's easy to be confused, but a lot of right, it's a lot of back and forth here.

You just gave us the more thought.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Matt O'Leary Good morning.

Uh thanks for letting me testify.

I'm just uh echoing what Lou Hamilton just said, representing the Wash Av Sid.

Um the parties have been hard at work just doing a couple cleaned up changes since the meeting on Thursday, Wednesday or Thursday of last week.

Um, and as Lou said, as long as the last couple words get changed, um the coalition's in good shape related to the change to amendment 11, and we uh appreciate your support on this.

Thank you.

Nick Hartzler good afternoon.

My name is Nick Hartzler.

I'm a lifelong city resident and resident um and a senior project manager with Sedfast City.

Um, just wanted to address a couple things real quick, real briefly, specifically around the notion um that the renewable language for the stand and requirements for the standard and major data data centers isn't just a band by another name.

Um last week testimony was given uh that if these requirements can't be met, then the project shouldn't be built.

Uh additionally, Amran has stated that they can't meet these requirements as addressed.

There's a lot of thoughts that so you know there's gonna be these major 400-acre can't, you know, can't hyperscale campuses being built in the city, but as is Miran Keller has also stated that with all the other languages in this bill, that also is not possible.

So just trying to find you know uh uh uh some form of middle ground there uh because those those things won't be built because you know, and it's assured through the other other language in here through candidly, we have kind of come to concede on, you know.

There there are some there's some pieces in here that I wish could be changed, but in in you know, interest of just trying to change this language, I concede it on those points.

Um just the question before you is not whether data centers should be uh responsible.

The answer is absolutely should be.

There's no doubt about that.

Question is does this bill as it's currently drafted create a real path for compliance?

And the answer is no.

So I just I hope and consider and ask that you'd consider adopting Amaron's recommended language for renewable.

Thank you.

Sean Faust.

Sean Fowl's first ward.

Um I wanted to speak to you guys a bit today about the Delta Bobcat solar project going on right here in Missouri.

We have about 200 electrical workers that IBW local one represents in that project.

It's going to be 100% clean solar energy.

But with the way this is being written, we're disincentivizing that plant from having renewable energy credits that could go towards these projects because of the bundled.

I'd like to ask that we do a combination of bundled and bundled and not just get all these renewable energy credits through Amran.

I don't think we should discriminate about where this clean energy is coming from.

The clean energy all goes into a pool with the dirty energy, it all goes onto the grid.

So imagine like a bucket of water.

You got your coal, it's dirty, it dumps on the grid, it goes in the pool.

The clean goes in the same pool, and then it's distributed out.

So I don't think we should prohibit one clean energy source over another.

So I'm asking that this legislation be amended to allow for a combination of all renewables, not just from Amran.

And I know there's a percentage in there, but allow for a combination so we can get energy from places like just less than two hours from St.

Louis, the next era energy bobcat Delta BobKit solar, and allowing those uh facilities to produce clean power onto our grid that we can get renewable energy uh credits for.

So please consider the combination of bundled and unbundled.

Thank you.

The final speaker, Namol Mirz.

Um Good afternoon, all.

Um my name is Nicole Murz, and uh I am a proud uh born and raised person in St.

Louis.

But for the past 10 years, I've actually been in Jefferson City as somebody who's worked with both the public service commission, the regulator of Amran, and now with New Missouri, um a renewable advocate.

And so I am very familiar with the process and procedure pathways to do this.

I've had direct experience in regulating this.

And rather than go through and combat all of the misinformation I've heard today, I'll just go through and say that there are this is a great compromise that that we support.

It is going to allow for data centers to come in, but it does still allow the city to meet its goals.

It has enough flexibility to allow those pathways to be done.

Airma Missouri and developers have not said that this cannot be met with 100% renewable.

They have just asked for flexibility to allow for that to be um done and some different possibilities in case there are regulatory delays or not have prepared for, but there are pathways in this that allow for that.

They can request a variance from you all.

There is um, you know, there's been a compromise to allow for them to have more unbundled wrecks at the beginning to allow for them to have the time to build and get that in-service generation.

So I really do believe that this is going to be a pathway that is both effective for your goals and something that everybody can um complete.

It is going to be successful.

Uh I also note right now, too, if we're really concerned about it right now in front of the Missouri Public Service, and Amran has a 1,000 megawatt solar facility and battery storage facility that could be utilized for this um these kind of projects, and actually, in that testimony in front of the uh state regulators, one of the reasons I put forward for that is to provide more clean energy for such projects.

So, and in sum, this is a great resolution that's both going to help accomplish clean energy goals, it's going to help isolate some of the city from excessive energy costs, it's going to reduce pollution, and it is a viable compromise.

Thank you all.

That was the final speaker.

All right.

Thank you so much, uh, Madam Chairwoman, members of the uh we're working to get the presentation back up on the screen.

So the amendments that we have today, as discussed, can be uh seen by by everyone in the room and anyone watching online.

Um I did try to outline what the uh renewable energy thresholds are in order to meet our sustainability goals.

And if I mixed up those words, I apologize.

Thresholds in the bill, goals and the sustainability plan.

So again, this is how we put our our plans into policy is by actually creating these thresholds.

So hopefully now I've been as clear as I possibly can be about what's in the bill, uh, so everyone knows what we're talking about.

Um looking at amendment number 12, uh, which will soon be up on the on the screen.

This is the amendment that adds more flexibility to the day one operation to allow for both bundled and unbundled recs.

The reason that the bundled um specification gets higher and uh throughout the rest of the bill, the year five and year 10 mark in the amendment is because bundled recs are actually um tied, bundled to the actual renewable energy that is feeding the energy that is coming to the facility.

And that's that's really important.

That energy coming to the facility includes that uh bundled renewable.

Um that is why that is called out as a um as a priority.

Um the uh year five operation continues to keep uh continues with the that 25% of the 50% requirement, so 25% of the total rather, um, of the 50% total requirement to be unbundled as to allow that more flexibility at year five, and then maintains that 25% threshold uh of unbundled as the it moves into the end of the 10th year at 100% renewable.

Um everyone should have on the committee, should have this um amendment before them, even though it's not up on the on the screen yet, which I know we're working on.

Um so with that, I would make a motion motion to I would move to adopt amendment number 12 to board bill 49.

Second.

I'm happy to take any questions.

It was moved by Ottawa Ms.

Weissler is thinking about Adam and Browning Amendment number 12 open for discussion.

Out of my cow out of Man Browning.

Uh thank you.

I I think you've explained this, and I don't necessarily have any questions, but I just want to clarify this all these amendments that we're doing today, uh, just so that we don't get things confused here.

Uh, these are all part of the work in progress that we're doing with this bill that there's been a lot of meetings happening to make sure that we're making this work for um just reality and and how uh these regulations will actually be applied and trying to make sure that we're uh really listening to everybody, but also um doing what's what's possible.

Um but I don't I don't know if there's anything else you want to say about that.

I I appreciate that the point.

Um, you know, I I think that uh detractors from the renewable energy uh thresholds would say that um that they're they're really a high threshold to meet and that it will be very difficult to meet that.

Uh I wouldn't argue that uh it's it's a difficult threshold.

I would argue that that doesn't make it any less important uh in order to meet the sustainability goals uh set by the city um or to you know frankly not go the opposite direction, uh, which is what we are at risk of if we do not have these strong thresholds in place.

Um, you know, the the electric service provider has not unequivocally said that it's not possible.

That is that is not true.

Um it is difficult and probably wouldn't be possible for dozens of major data centers, especially when you get into the you know really high megawatt scale.

Um, but right now we're not talking about that.

We're talking about each each application as it comes through to the city of St.

Louis one at a time.

So if there is an application for a data center that comes in once these regulations in place, they would need to work with their you know, electric service provider to create a pathway and to how they would meet these these requirements.

Um so I believe that is possible and something that the city should be doing.

Um, as I think many people have said, you know, the the bill isn't uh, you know, if each individual person in this room was writing this bill by themselves, I'm sure it would look as different as the number of people in this room.

Um, but this is an effort to both meet those sustainability goals uh and set real thresholds for the renewable energy requirement that will create um you know results and uh for the city of St.

Louis residents who we represent.

Thank you.

Yeah, I think it should be difficult to build any use that has negative impacts on a surrounding environment in a dense urban environment.

So that makes sense to me.

It's not like we'd allow a refinery to go in the middle of our city or some other large use that has effects such as increasing asthma rates or increasing the heat island urban island effect or anything else.

And so and all of those things will still happen if um there are you know these data centers built.

Uh the number of generators needed for major data centers versus standard versus micro is very different.

Uh so uh it's you know the the renewable energy requirement is consistent for both standard and major data centers.

Um of course the major data centers would have a harder time meeting the requirement, but they also have a substantially um you know higher uh negative impact in terms of the the emissions on site with the generators that would be needed to have as backup um as well as the heat produced that would uh and the noise produced, uh which we've discussed as well.

Um so that's it's why it's this you know consistent standard for either standard or major.

I think it'll be significantly easier for a standard data center, especially the ones on the smaller side to meet these requirements.

Um and again, we we don't have data centers in the city of St.

Louis that are that are over 10 megawatts at this time.

Uh so the the data centers that currently operate, if if others like them were trying to come in at that over five megawatt threshold, um, this would be uh a much easier um threshold to meet than a data center over a hundred megawatts.

And I add I don't deny that.

Okay, thank you.

That that's my questions on this amendment.

Thank you.

Adam Adrich.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee.

Uh thank you, all women sweit, sir, for bringing these uh amendments forward.

I like the, even though it's small on the screen, kind of the bowed.

I'm assuming that the bow languages, what is changed?

Yeah, so the um yes.

So in the in the day one, uh having complete flexibility between bundled and unbundled recs uh for that sort of initial entry into the market, which again, as we've talked about, data centers can take years to come online.

Uh so day one could be three years from when the application first comes in.

Um, and then the 25% unbundled at five years.

We had it originally had that um only 12.5% of the requ of the total energy come from unbundled to meet the 50% requirement of total that had been previous.

So this increases the amount of unbundled as well in year five, and again, have more flexibility, and it keeps that you know, one time up to one year waiver to uh for you know any unforeseen issues with um achieving those bundled um and uh and I think a previous speaker uh mentioned some level of like combined of bundled and unbundled.

It looks like that's what you're achieving in uh that paragraph number one where it's a combination of bundled and unbundled under um coming in.

Is that correct?

So yes, it's 50% of the total energy produced would be renewable energy, and uh um 50% of that so uh could be bundled or unbundled.

Um so 25 of total, 25% could be unbundled and 25% would need to be at least would need to be bundled to meet make that full 50%.

Yeah, and maybe let me not speak on what Mr.

Sean Faust was saying, because maybe you're saying 100%, but there is some level of bundled regardless of what this new amendment is doing, correct?

Yes, and that again is really important because it's tied to the actual energy production feeding the um electric service that is provided to the data center, not just in the grid in general.

Um we're trying to, you know, the the more that it's within the actual electric service, the more benefit that you'd see if you were you know are a resident of the city of St.

Louis um for renewable energy production.

And is this the I guess the language of like you say, there's been a lot of conversation and means going on, like maybe the language that has been an agreement with you and like the AMR and stakeholder.

I wouldn't say an agreement, Amorin, and and I I posted it in an earlier slide.

You know, Amor and had would like to see no originally they wanted to see no differentiation between bundled and unbundled.

They wanted it all to be possible to meet every requirement.

Um, but we've pushed, you know, the city pushes back against that because of the actual tie to renewable energy generation that the bundled rec represents and the compromise that is adjusted in this amendment is uh larger amounts unbundled for that day one in year five um timeline.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, they subsequently said that they would just like to continue to see more and more of the requirement to be met by unbundles, but again, um, you know, I think there's already been significant compromise in this requirement um in previous amendments that we've made to lower the day one requirement from 50% to 25%, which I think has been a huge compromise.

Um, and the additional compromises that are are made here.

And just for folks watching, this is uh saga number four of data center.

Um bundled, if I'm hearing it right, is uh recks that are bought by data centers, maybe directly from like Amran.

So the un the bundled racks um we have here laid out where that they can come from.

So let me read that.

Bundled racks shall be obtained through the electric utilities renewable energy programs, PSC approved large load renewable energy programs, clean energy writers, the electric utilities generation portfolio, including participation in virtual power plant programs.

Um bundled, we're also saying that to meet the 25% bundled rack, they also have uh on site, uh, which of course will be harder and and less of you know a less smaller percentage for some of the the um major data centers to have like a high percentage on site, but for the standard data center sizes, they could have more um renewable energy generation to meet their their requirement, their threshold um site as well.

Um then the unbundled is not necessarily could be from here in like Iowa or like other states that would we would be or they would be purchasing it to still produce clean energy, but not maybe going like into our grid.

Is that is am I am I right or so the the unbundled difference is really um the the credit that is being purchased is really just like the solar was created or solar wind, uh whatever whatever type of credit it has was created at some point, and this amount of energy is being credited to this customer.

It is not tied to energy that is being created to come to that customer within what what a bundle does is that it marries those two things.

And I if I say anything wrong, I hope some of our experts will pop up.

Um I have uh been trying to make sure I can explain that well because I know on the floor I'd have to do it without someone here to speak on it.

Um, but I'm trying to uh just hope that I'm explaining it well enough and they'll shake their heads if I got it wrong.

Great.

Yeah, thank you.

And uh I would want to give a shout out to uh MCE who I think what I asked like at the last meeting is just the education on this because there's a whole lot of nuance, and uh we shouldn't expect that everyone either on this committee or on the floor is gonna understand all these terms, especially as like uh these conversational data centers are popping up and glad that they are.

Um, but there is a lot of as I say, ignorance and a a good way of uneducated around uh everyone's not an expert in you know what's happening in data centers.

So I do want to thank MCE for at least taking the time to educate me on the bundled and unbundled uh process, and that's all that I have.

Thank you, Alderman.

Vice Chair Smaggage Thank you, uh Madam Chair, Honor Woman Schweitzer.

Uh, you know, I think as a zone record, we've uh I've been a part of many discussions and I've been here since planning commission.

Um, you know, I would just say at this time I think that um, you know, it's very disheartening to me to hear that there are feelings that there hasn't been an honest attempt to have everyone at the table.

Um I have genuinely tried, it's from the planning commission to this point to try to sit down and to respond to me as many requests as possible.

Myself and all the woman Schweitzer have sometimes divided the task up because there are so many folks to speak to and and and to talk to.

Um but I know like my goal is that I I feel strongly that as an elected official, um, we don't get to create the room and decide who gets to sit at the table.

I think that I do have a right to get up and agree to disagree, um, but I feel that I owe it to the thousands of people who I represent to sit down and hold space with individuals.

Um and I've tried my best to have conversations across the board to thread the needle.

Um, I think that the data center, the existing data center folks who came out and said, yes, we sat down, we talked, and as long as these amendments are made, we're in support.

I think that serves as evidence that we have attempted to have those conversations and get that right because that was racist.

I know the renewable energy piece um, you know, uh it has come up.

I'll say, you know, I am a transparent person, so I'm not a person who lies.

Yes, as a planning commissioner, I did attempt to support a ban on major data centers.

Um that's my opinion.

That's how I feel about it.

That is how uh a super majority of the constituents that I serve and represent uh feel about it.

Um, and I've been very transparent that the way that that original data center was the way that the original major data center was approved in such a non-transparent and I would say sneaky way that undermines uh democracy and undermines public trust, only in Bolden my desire to see that sort of ban, you know, take place.

And so um, but I I just want to push back against the idea that anything is being done in the dark.

I've not done anything in the dark or non-transparently.

I've actually put everything on social media, I've sent emails with it in writing on things that are sunshineable.

There is nothing that I'm doing uh that is in secret.

My residents who are emailing me, and I have gotten tons who are like, what's going on with the regulation to get detailed updates with me?

Here's the next hearing for this, here's the conversation for that.

It's going back to planning commission.

So, you know, I just want to be really clear.

Like, yes, and um, I am a person who is not supportive of major data centers.

That is true, that's a fact, that's the way I feel about that.

The good news is for folks who are supported, I didn't get a say so in that.

The city of St.

Louis already did that and already approved it.

So I did the next responsible pivot and said, okay, you know what?

Let's get in the weeds on these regulations and let's make sure they're fair.

Now, if you ask me, are you trying to ban data centers with these regulations?

No, I'm not.

If I was gonna do that, I would bring an amendment forward to do a ban, like I did on a planning commission.

I don't have to do anything in secret.

I'm not afraid of taking the position or taking a stand, and I don't think that it is um of integrity to be in this type of position and to sneak things through.

If I had a desire to do a ban, you would see an amendment proposed to this committee or proposed on the Florida Board of Ottawa, and that would be proposing a ban.

What is being attempted now is I think it's just like again, this is a nuanced thing.

There are lots of conversations to have.

There's a lot of um threading of the needle to be done.

I think we had a very productive meeting with um NCE, NCE, some folks from Amran, um, some folks from the building trades.

I think we we just did that yesterday.

The amendment you see in front of us from the Alder Woman, um, I think is another attempt to try to thread a needle, not an attempt to ban it.

Because if we were trying to ban it, we would have kept it at 50% renewable and left it at fully uh and uh a bundled requirement even though Emiran was saying it's not reachable.

When they said no, we still don't think this is reachable.

We did the work to set up a meeting to get everybody in the room.

So I just really want to push back.

I know there are things within uh the bill that many of us don't like, myself included.

I would rather, you know, I my position on these is clear, but I think that it's important to not say that anyone is being left out of the process or anyone is not being included.

Um, if that is happening, again, I have a phone number, I have an email.

I am always happy to make myself available to anyone as much as I can to have the conversations, especially as I understand that I have the privilege of having served on the planning commission.

Um, thanks to the chairwoman, thanks to my colleagues.

I'm always happy to sit down and explain my thinking behind things, my rationale, my understanding.

Again, it doesn't mean we will agree, um, but I'm absolutely happy to sit down and have those conversations and to be transparent.

And when it comes to my attention that someone believes there's something within the legislation that would keep us from it, I'm happy to have conversations about amending that.

Um, I just want to put that, you know, really true on the record.

I would not say that uh there's anyone.

I was not saying that there's anyone that I've sat at the table with is interested in um is not interested in regulations.

I would not say that that there's a desire from anybody um at the table, even folks who are pro-data centers to not have regulations.

I've not heard that, and obviously from our conversations, we don't the legislation doesn't progress if people lock in.

We've been able to get here because of conversations, so I wouldn't say that, but I would just say that again, if you're hearing public comment and what I'm hearing from my constituents, uh regulations are one thing, but even now there's some of them are very public.

I'm not happy where the regulations are because I feel like if you're gonna put a data center in, I want to say so on on whether or not that happens.

And I really don't actually even want you as my alder person or any other auto person or even the mayor to be the one decision because I don't trust the way the process happened the first time.

Um, but that is not, you know, that's just me being transparent on where things are.

Um I don't necessarily have a lot of um a lot of questions about the amendment before us.

Um I just want to make it clear, you know, for folks who may be watching and for folks who um I am talking to via email.

I know that uh Alderman Aldrich's questions about bundles and unbundles and nuances um data centers.

You know, I've gotten plenty of emails from residents.

Please don't hesitate to send me an email about anything you have a question about.

I know things are moving fast.

Um, if you want to have a phone call, I've got office hours coming up.

If there's anything I can do for any stakeholders that's interested and you're interested in having a conversation or you have a question for me, I fully believe in an open door policy.

I'm very transparent.

Um, so I you know want to make sure I'm open to that.

But the amendments that are in front of us, I would say are a result of all the women Schweitzer's work to try to thread this needle and find something that can work and to address the concerns that have been brought up while not negating the point that I do believe there should be a renewable energy requirement.

I do feel strongly about that, that there should be a renewable energy requirement.

I think there can be flexibility in how you meet that threshold and how that goal.

Obviously, you have to consider you know what's gonna happen, but I do feel that there can be a renewable energy requirement.

And I think to anyone who would say, well, you can't force Amir to do renewable, understood.

You cannot force Airman to do renewable, and then you also cannot force data centers on residents who do not want them.

So I think that we have to balance that line.

Thank you.

Is Alderman Cone back on?

I've been here.

I don't have any questions or comments at this time.

Thank you.

Adam Swissen.

Uh thank you for all of the the feedback and the questions on this amendment.

And with that, I renew to adopt amendment.

I renew my motion to adopt amendment number 12 to board bill 49 as amended.

All in favor.

Aye.

All right.

Any opposed.

All right.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate that.

Amendment number 13 amends the applicability section after further conversation with the current um the current data center operators.

And it's on the screen what uh what the amendment is.

Some of these things are about, you know, the specific requirements that are triggered regarding the you know, um, if there are structures that need to be built to deal with um noise abatement or issues that that would not be considered an expansion, things things that um make sure that uh it's clear as well as what happens when a fuel tank is replaced, um things to that nature.

Uh so a lot of really specific wording here, um, which is up on the screen, and and hopefully no one's shaking their head back there saying that we missed it.

So um I I appreciate uh any questions that come up.

Um but uh and with that all said, I would like to make it, I would make a motion to adopt amendment number 13 to board bill 49 as amended.

Second, it was moved by Alduman Swiss and seconded by Vice Chair Sign Yay that we adopt amendment number 13.

Anyone have any discussion?

Alderman Cow.

Alderman Aldridge.

Thank you, madam chair, members of the committee.

Uh mainly um I'm in supportive of these, but this is a committee process.

I just want uh you know, for us to like dig a little deeper into these amendments for people that's not watching.

So it looks like um for section 26.7.05 D.

It looks like uh could I guess you talk about the is this um would this change be for existing data centers, or would this be a change for all data centers?

Right, good question.

This is this is for the current non-conforming, you know, the non-conforming uses.

And when you say non-conforming, that means current data, exactly right.

So if a data center that is currently operating has been permitted um and is operating legally, uh, there are a lot of discussions that we've had about what triggers what requirement.

Um so this um goes over the triggers for uh you know, clarifying some of the triggers for the roof requirement, the um the how the fuel tanks would need to be what what requirements fuel tanks would need to to um adhere to, or you know, what what would happens if there are new fuel tanks put on um and uh regarding uh structures that might need to be built to deal with some of the the other requirements regarding um you know noise and uh screening.

So this is this is for the the existing data centers and what they would have to adhere to and when.

Okay, and this was uh compromise language um that you worked with is the existing data centers.

Yes.

And is that um I think Mr.

Lou Hamilton, Mr.

Maddow Leary brought up like there was a few tweaks from planning that you all agreed to.

Yeah, this is so last week when we had this conversation, uh we you know had reached um an agreement with the language that was presented and adopted last week.

Um, but if you remember the the speakers from the current operators had said they are reading it through, you know, another probably hundred times to make sure that they don't feel like anything either wasn't clear or missed in any sort of specific way that they wanted to clarify further.

Um, so these these clarifications are coming from them.

Um the one thing that that I added uh after they sent the um desired changes was um for the fuel tanks that they do have to meet um the building and systems equipment design and screening standards um when structural alteration is made to have those new fuel tanks.

So that little and no structural alteration is made in that first uh bolded paragraph is something that I added and they agreed to.

Okay.

So those little few tweaks you all.

I mean, it's been a a lot of conversation, a lot of um, you know, trying to make it make it work uh for you know already operating data centers that um are a part of our city economy and our land use that's already operating and permitted even without the regulation.

So um and I'm I'm gonna like I say I'm gonna vote for the amendment, but I guess what I'm asking that little I think they had said there was some like little tweaks of language from planning that needed to get in, and that's in there.

I think this is everything that was agreed to.

I don't think I see them shaking their head, so that answers my question.

Thank you, Aldwama.

Thank you.

No more questions, madam chair.

Vice Chair Snaya.

I don't have any questions.

I think X the questions I would have just to kind of explain to the public the purpose.

Um I uh would just say that I am trying to see if we can get some more printouts of the amendments, and then maybe I can set them over to the side and whoever would be in following along with us with their own paper, uh, will be able to for everyone in the room.

All right, no more questions or comments on amendment number 13.

So all in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Anyone oppose I'm I'm sure that I made the motion, but I can't remember who seconded it.

But um okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much.

Um moving on to amendment number 14.

Uh Madam Clerk, if you could please advance the slide.

Thank you.

Oh, okay, I understand.

Uh so amendment number 14.

Uh in the application requirements, there's a requirement for measurement of the baseline noise levels.

And similarly, as we did last uh week, we added some uh language around other of those requirements in the application for a third party uh professional to be the one taking that baseline, and so this amendment adds as measured by a third-party noise measurement professional approved by the city to baseline noise levels.

Anyone else wants my future amendments?

I'm happy to keep handing them out to that's it on the screen.

Um this is um this is important uh as has been discussed about you know how the type of noise that's created by data centers.

Um, there's been a lot of conversation around noise and how we monitor it.

Uh we do have another board bill, board bill 48, that is uh still a work in progress that I'm I'm taking a lot of feedback from the conversations we have today and and how things are monitored and what kind of equipment that our our uh departments need in order to best monitor these different things.

Uh so I would expect to see some of those comments um in Board Bill 48 as we continue to you know move from the the regulation side before new data centers are permitted to how we how the city is monitoring those data centers after they're in um in operation.

Uh so with that I would move to adopt amendment number 14 to Board Bill 49 as amended.

Second it was moved by Autumn Sweisser and seconded by Vice Chair Sang Yay that we adopt amendment number 14.

We'll open for discussion.

Anybody Adam and Cohen, I see your video just came on.

No questions.

Anyone at the dice Altamet Aldridge?

Members of the committee, I thank you, Aldwoman Sweitzer for bringing this forward.

So as measured by a third party, I know third party is in the kind of original bill that talks about I believe third party will be the one that like kind of go out and survey to make sure everything is done properly, correct?

So in the different application requirements, um, there's uh different uh you know third-party environmental review, for example.

And this is a requirement where there was a requirement in the application to provide the baseline noise levels, but it doesn't specify who would do it applying uh applying those.

So um, you know, some of the the feedback that we got was you know how important that is to have that you know third party verification of what the noise levels are uh so that the city can hold the um data centers accountable to you know the the regulations which are um laid out about how much more they can go over that baseline, a certain you know, um number over that baseline.

Gotcha.

And I like the idea of uh uh a third party, it's not done by city, is not done by data center owners, but it's somebody independent.

I guess one of the things I never asked is uh who's gonna I guess pick it says professionals approved by the city, who's gonna pick these release bees like uh organ or who's gonna pick the individuals to do this work.

Yeah, the application be coming in through the the Board of Public Service with the conditional use process.

So um between you know the Board of Public Service and planning and zoning staff, that would be where um this that you know approval would come from.

Okay.

No more questions.

Thank you.

Okay.

Just someone I am taking my time with this because I did confirm I felt like there might have been a delay.

There's definitely a delay.

So I want to make sure Otama Cone has time when I ask the questions.

I don't want you to think I'm holding it up when I'm asking it.

Okay.

So I guess he's fine with this one.

Okay.

Oh, he okay.

You got a thumbs up.

All right.

Um, so it was the motion was made and seconded.

All in favor for amendment 14.

Uh okay.

Uh amendment 15.

Uh, you know, in our first iteration of the requirements that of the board bill that came out of the recommendation uh the planning commission, we had uh local renewable energy credits uh as a definition.

Uh we have since moved away from that term, local renewable energy credits and moved um through to say bundled and unbundled and bundled and unbundled have both had uh definitions added to the bill as of our our previous meeting, definitions, definitions coming from Amran as its suggested language.

Uh so this uh they noted yesterday in the meeting that it was confusing to still have a definition that was no longer used in the bill.

Uh so that is why uh this amendment is here.

So with that, I would move to adopt amendment number 15 to Board Bill 49 as a mended.

Second, it was moved by Ottawa Ms.

Weiss and seconded about Alderman Browning that we adopt amendment number 15.

And I open it up for discussion.

Alderman Aldrich.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee.

Thank you, Alderwomen.

So I'm assuming you had this definition of local renewable energy credits to try to get at um data center owners, operators buying credits locally here in our area that would go to our grid.

Uh is this local renewable energy credits for people not watching, known as recs that I'm learning.

Is this something that will be, I guess, in the bundle?

So these will they they're able to capture these recs locally through the bundle.

I think the definitions of bundled and unbundled um that were provided by Amorin more clearly get to how this renewable energy requirement would be um measured and and what makes up bundled versus an unbundled rec is more clear uh clearly defined now in our regulations.

And this was sort of a leftover term that had been used uh to kind of largely define bundled recks um in a previous uh in the in the planning commission recommendation that we had as introduced as board bill 49.

Um and once we made the change to bundled and unbundled as the the language and and I think really cleaned up the language, uh this term is no longer needed because it's not used.

Local approachable energy credit is not used in the bill.

Got it.

And I guess the R the REC is the renewable energy credit set, or which like you can get from bundle to unbundled, but I guess that that one word local is uh you can those will still be captured either in the bundled or unbundled.

Yeah, right.

The um both bundled and unbundled are defined uh where they where the wrecks can come from.

So even though it an you know unbundled rec doesn't result in that same kind of bundling, that pairing of the actual renewable generity generation and what the customers uh buying from the electric service provider, it still is within um the more local, I would say, area.

It's that's a bundle, like um bundled and unbundled, both of those um have some parameters in terms of where they can come from.

Uh so like uh renew renewable energy credit from California, for example, would not qualify as either bundled or unbundled.

Gotcha.

And uh just so I'm clear, because this is interesting.

The unbundled can necessarily maybe come from our like region, but not necessarily would be like a we'll say like local, maybe compare more to like the bundled, which the bundle would be more like directly, and I see MCE shaking their head like more like yeah, I might I I feel that I'm not explaining it well enough.

Do you mind if I have Renew Missouri come up and I would love to?

I think this is Alderman.

Important to make sure we all are educated.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Hi, Nicole Murps with Renew Missouri again.

Um the I I think that in the conversations with Amran and these discussions that having that distinction with the bundled and unbundled recs but still having it tied regionally kind of subsumes and captures the intent of having that local credit.

So the the region is still getting that energy really what the difference is going to be is that when you bundled a rec, um the facility and it's retired on their behalf they're both getting the energy that's produced and the rack.

And so that sorry about that that actually would help put downward pressure on rates because if the the data center or the developer is paying for the actual energy as well as the recs that's less for other customers to have to pick up.

So that was an important economic thing that I think was was kind of the intent but having that change definition still captures that and that's why there's more less um encouragement to do the unbundled rec because that's not necessarily have that same pressure on rates because the energy can be sold to a completely third person.

The data center can buy the recs but then the energy could go to to Walmart or or whoever else.

So I think those is bundled is going to both provide benefits for the region, accomplish the renewable goals but then also help with the downward pressure on rates which bundled recs might not have as much of an effect on that if that helps.

Kathy and I get the the the point of trying to do the bundle unbundled is a maybe some some level of compromise which may not be at a perfect level that everyone love but just in layman terms so that everything that you said so eloquently and amazing uh bundled again it would and I think that the goal of these is to as Aldwoman said multiple times to try to achieve our sustainability plan.

So doing something in a a plus instead of not doing anything or going in the the backward direction right but bundled data center by a bundle wreck that energy being bought help people in our area to maybe go down on their cost and that is something that is a credit that not only are they buying but it's like direct energy from let's just say our grid.

The more the more important piece for the bundled um you know we can't regulate rates uh we're not regulating rates in this in this bill and that's very important um it's the actual production of energy that is feeding into what the customer is purchasing.

So it's that actual production of energy that helps meet the sustainability goals whereas unbundled allows the flexibility.

There is no desire with what we're doing with unbundled or bundled recs to change anything with rates.

It's not something that we can regulate at all through this process.

Correct and I guess with the I guess the bundle we can't regulate those either because those are coming from uh the uh energy source and we can't regulate bundled or unbundled I think the what I'm trying to get at and just hopefully to educate folks and for all those that are watching that may also act as bundled is more direct impact to consumers.

I see her shaking her head so I'm onto something consumers and we'll probably be energy that's going to our grid compared to unbundled is more a direct it is a buy of a credit which will help the world or help our region go clean but it may not necessarily directly impact local folks it could impact somebody in Iowa or Michigan or Minnesota somewhere at least in the region not necessarily like California or New York because that's too far but the unbundled is still supporting the um environment with clean credits but it may not have and which I think why you're trying to get more of the bundle because this is something that would help more of our not only sustainability goal but like consumers here locally compared to what unbundled is my we can't really um do anything in the bill that affects consumers um that's not something that can be really a part of the regulations but we can think about uh the people of the city of St.

Louis and the reason we set sustainability goals and the goal uh within sustainability goals um to actually have uh industry especially as you get into these larger scale users of energy um using renewables which is the bundled is the actual kind of use of those renewables into the system into what they're buying.

So do my analogy I get what you're saying do my analogy of the bundled and unbundled make sense I'm seeing head shaking but I'm not seeing like you saying yes I'm seeing like maybe the experts shaking their head like that you mean like nodding or shaking like nodding in agreement of my analogy.

I just want to be clear about what the like regulatory intent is of the Yeah yeah not I I think we've said we're not trying to regulate Amory because we can't do that.

Um but since we're talking about like bundled and in recs, and I want to stay uh I guess like kind of germane to these amendments that's in front of us, not like the bigger thing, but rec being one that going back to that bundle unbundled, that's kind of the um gist of how those work.

Yeah, the actual renewable energy production that's feeding in to what the customer what they're buying is really the main difference.

Okay.

And the bundle facts of that are are many and varied and important for different reasons to different people, but in this case, it's to um have the you know power generation that is powering a land use in the city of St.

Louis um beading towards meeting our sustainability goals, which that capture more in the bundle, correct?

Correct.

And then the unbundled capture the the clean energy, but maybe um not like in our grid or in our region, correct?

It's it's the credit for the existence of clean energy to that amount, but it's not the actual energy itself feeding in to what they're what they're buying.

Gotcha and using at the facility.

So it's it's just not as strong, um, which is why I wanted more unbundled.

Oh, sorry, why I wanted more bundled requirements in this in this bill and why I've been pushing so hard for them.

Um, but I understand that.

And you compromise with doing more unbundled to I think I got it all.

And what's your name?

It's uh no call members with Renew Missouri.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Out of my comb.

All right.

All in favor for adoption of amendment number 15.

Aye.

Right.

Thank you.

Um we are getting to our last amendment here, amendment number 16.

Um earlier amendment, we were talking about uh especially with the year five ability to have that one year waiver uh that can show um, you know, if if the if the data center, if the land user is not able to meet the requirement of year five, that they have the ability to apply for that waiver to get an extension.

Um thinking about that is you know, how is the city really going to know that efforts have been made to meet that requirement?

And it's not just, oh, we get to year five and you have this waiver opportunity, so let's apply for it.

And that is looking like amendment number 16.

Uh Mr.

Clerk, if you don't mind uh advancing the slide to amendment 16, um to uh add more information about what the uh renewable energy report has to provide.

Uh that is a yearly um reporting requirement requirement.

Um so it in the requirement um it includes the progress reports documenting the efforts to to meet the renewable energy requirements so that um it's clear what's happening and and to so that everyone feels comfortable that you know if there is a a moment in year five where a waiver has to be applied for, uh, that they've done everything they can to meet and comply with the provision based on what they've been reporting uh beforehand and then after uh as well to get to to year 10 and to to maintain uh because that's a big part of that year 10 requirement is it's not just meeting it at the end of the 10th year, but it's maintaining uh as well.

So um that is uh some with some clarity to um add some information about what exactly the report needs to include.

So with that, I would move to adopt amendment number sixteen to board bill 49.

Second with the move by Autumn Slicer and seconded by Vice Chair Sany that we adopt amendment number sixteen, we're open for discussion.

Anyone at the diet thought out of home?

Yeah, I think this we're good on amendment number sixteen, all in favor.

Oh, I have a question.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Alderman I'll just do have questions.

I'm diving deep into all of these, which I support them all, but like I said, as uh as we say, this is where the work happens.

So and thank you, madam chair, I apologize.

Um this is something that planning will be uh doing after, and to be clear, you say after year five because the way Oh, it would be annual.

So as the as the um if there are the renewable requirements for the standard and major data centers as in in this bill of those passed, then annually those uh data centers will be reporting many things, uh, one of which is their energy use, one of which is already in the bill that they'd have an annual report verifying compliance with the um relevant renewable uh requirements.

But in this case, because there's that waiver, um, not only just you know we're at 38% now, but how are you going to get to year five?

What is your plan to get to year five?

What is your plan to get to year 10?

How are you going to make uh more of those specifics in this requirement?

So it doesn't add a new requirement for reporting, it just clarifies what is in the report.

And I guess the way reading it is something that's not changed was changes in both this report goes to the executive director of the planning urban uh design agency.

Oh, yes, yeah, that's not changed.

Okay.

Um maybe this is uh so unfortunate.

I think our executive director is leaving from that department soon.

Um, but there's a lot of great people to step up.

Do these reports being, I guess the commissioner are these reports public on their website for the public to see how would the public be able to see these reports and make sure that data centers also are the ones maybe in people neighborhood or abiding by the rules.

Is there any public um ability to see these reports?

Uh just like anything that would come into the city that it is all sunshineable.

Um, but I am definitely interested in adding more information about how uh to make more of these reports clear more more clear and more easily accessible.

It would certainly be my intention that these reports could be requested by anyone.

Okay.

Available to anyone who would like to see them.

Would love it.

Um, and I mean it's not some I'm married over, but if there's a way, since we're we're uh diving so deep into all the uh this data center, and clearly there's a abundance of energy from the community to either have input or see what's happening away that um we wouldn't uh have to force people to do a sunshine uh report to just be able to see it um online.

And I will say um I think you already mentioned there's a lot of stuff in the bill that you've changed a lot of stuff in the bill people don't like.

I think with some of the changes you made today, I um uh appreciate them and look forward to voting out of committee.

I will say uh this is kind of the not the reporting, but with the waiver.

That's the one thing I I don't necessarily guess agree with I guess a waiver on the first end and then finding them if they can't meet it.

And I think that was just a conversation in committee if like demand in the market's not there.

We're kind of uh and maybe I could be wrong because maybe you know learning, but if the demand's not there, first time they get a waiver, but if the demand's not there like second or third time that you know they're getting fined, not on their ability to try to meet it, but on the ability of the market just don't allow it.

But you know, that's uh hopefully as we get closer to the the year five where there's more requirements, there'll be more conversations.

Legislation always can we got to get something out there.

I totally agree, can always be amended and changed and tweaked, but uh we'll love to see if there's a way that this uh reporting is uh public facing without people having to do a sunshine request.

I appreciate that, and we'll think about that.

All in favor, adapting amendment number 16.

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

Um, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you, members of the committee for walking through uh those amendments with me.

Um I appreciate the time greatly.

I know it's been a lot.

Uh since we now have Board Bill 49 as amended and amended again in front of us, uh, I wanted to invite um Miss Mirror up, if you're still here, uh, to speak in a bill as a whole, um, and any staff feedback as we move, hopefully to get this bill out of committee today, and then back in front of the planning commission for more feedback.

Good morning, or I think now afternoon to members of this committee, Chairwoman Clark Hubbard, Miran Keller from the City of St.

Louis Planning and Urban Design Agency.

I just wanted to um briefly address that I think each of these amendments addresses um kind of tweaks that in many cases were really needed of the planning commission's recommendation to resolve uh technical concerns that were not fully addressed, um, and to respond to other feedback received after the planning commission made its recommendation.

I think as this committee knows well, um often technical and community feedback continues to come in after um zoning regulations leave the planning commission's uh desk, as it were.

And I think um the Alderman Schweitzer co-sponsors on this bill all did really um good dedicated work, working with stakeholders to understand those concerns, um, resolve those those issues, and also um consulted with planning staff and other staff that helped initially draft the regulations along the way.

So I just wanted to um ask the staff to the planning commission address that we are um we have a notice on our agenda for the planning commission tomorrow night to review these um if if that timing is right, if the committee um moves to recommend these regulations out of committee today, and uh just wanted to thank again all of the participants, all the many, many dedicated participants and in this process and um to coming to the table in good faith to share ideas, share concerns, and work to address them.

Ms.

Keller asked see if any of our colleagues have any questions or anything for you, just in case Alderman Cole.

No questions.

Thank you.

Alderman Browning.

Uh no questions.

I just want to say thank you.

I really appreciate how the staff has sought to really understand this issue and uh worked with people on every side of the issue to develop really thoughtful regulations.

Alderman Aldridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair members of the committee.

Uh I guess process-wise, Ms.

Uh uh Keller.

So you said this would be going in front of planning tomorrow.

Uh the committee, the commit the commission and committee members, correct?

Correct.

And what time is that for?

Uh set for 5 30.

I believe we have this as the sec the third item on the agenda after important informational updates.

Uh and what is, I guess.

So for all these amendments to um reach majority, uh all the committee members will have to vote in favor of each amendment.

The commission will review amendments one by one.

Um I've grouped some into sort of thematically related changes just for the commission's kind of clarity and reviewing them all.

Um, but each will be presented and discussed and um voted on.

I believe any further feedback or flags documented and submitted to the board.

Gotcha.

And this is just truly a question, and I do appreciate the work uh that you and uh planning has done.

Have you seen, I guess, in your time, a process move this quick of like a bill change that would need to go back to planning for those members to vote on, like with less than 24 hours.

Well, uh it'd be a little bit more than 24 hours because that'd be posted before then.

But have you seen such a I guess a um quick turnaround on a board bill that maybe change in the board that would need to go back to planning?

Most my phone else the data center set off the file.

I'm just kidding.

I make the motion that we resist.

All in favor.

I good afternoon.

Thank you, SCLCV.

Thank you, everyone for your cooperation.

We survived by everyone is okay here in City House.

So with that, I'll accept the motion to return from recess.

So moved.

Second.

It was moved by Vice Chair Sangang and seconded by Alderman Browning.

Then we return from Resist.

All in favor.

Aye.

All right.

Umsweisser when we resist, we were wrapping up comments.

Uh we had heard from Ms.

Keller of the Planning Division.

So unless anyone else has any further questions, I think we can go ahead and welcome Ottawa Miss Weisser.

Ms.

Keller is here.

But I was seeing if nobody had any more additional questions for her.

Yeah.

Madam Chair.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Sorry, I never left the room, but I think we were uh listening to Alderman Aldridge.

Uh he had questions for Ms.

Keller.

I think is where we left off.

Yeah, I thought he said he was wrapped up because he might need to have what if if you know, yeah.

Okay.

If Ms.

Keller has anything additional she wanted to state, I'll I'll of course pass.

Alderman Aldridge said he does have some additional questions.

Oh, okay.

Welcome back from our tornado break.

I mean, not uh fire drill break, not tornado.

Um I think I had left off asking uh you, Ms.

Keller, uh, have you seen the process move so fast of uh we'll vote this out today and then planning committee would take this up tomorrow.

Historically has it been done this fast if a board bill has been changed by the board of Aldman and needs to go back to planning.

We haven't had um that many items where this rule applies.

I think what makes this distinct though is the number of conversations and hearings and meetings on this topic that have occurred in the plan and commission.

Um I think if planning and sustainability staff hadn't had the benefit of receiving and hearing a lot of the feedback and kind of participating in the technical problem solving alongside the sponsors and co-sponsors, um, this would be more challenging.

But we were part of that process and I think are prepared to fully describe the the rationale behind each amendment.

And for the public, I do want them to know that uh the planning staff has been uh working on uh this topic for a very long time and you have put a lot of work into this.

I guess my last question would be a little bit for you and maybe the Alderwoman.

If so this would be uh if it'll come out today and plan is taking this up tomorrow, the board process, uh this Friday will be second read.

I don't believe the Alderwoman plan uh suspend the rules uh this week.

If she does, she has my support with that.

But um if she don't, then it'll be perfected next week.

If any changes are made during perfection on the floor, which then um there's other alders that are not on this committee, I guess with that bill then have to go back to planning again um if amendments are made on the floor.

Any substantive changes would, yes.

Um I think something I should have included in my previous response also is that this topic has been an expressed priority of the planning commission since I suppose April of 2025, and the commission has expressed um many commissioners expressed a desire to support the board's work to get regulations in place um sooner rather than later.

So I think staff is operating with that spirit in mind.

Okay.

Would you I guess consider, and I was asking the Alderwoman, would you consider um the reporting of uh or the reporting mechanism that you all do be um on planning's website or some like public facing, would you consider that like a substantive if we wouldn't to uh change that on the floor to make the reporting mechanism public for people to read?

I don't I'm not sure.

I I was also in a um text exchange with the executive director, and he suggested ways we could do that even without a a change to the regulations.

I don't know that um it's required for the regulations to um for us to do that.

For example, we could um provide those ports as notice to the planning commission or something like that.

I I think our perspective is everything received by the department then of course becomes public information in this realm.

Gotcha.

Okay, and I know yeah, do a good job of kind of making those documents either to uh the commissioners or people that sit on planning and um it's always in my opinion, not everything has to be in a bill, but it's always good to try to get as much because who knows how teams change or departments change depending on administration so executive director.

So that's all the questions I have, and thank you for all the work you've done on this.

Okay.

Alderwoman Miss Weiss, you're welcome to close.

Oh, thank you.

Um I do have uh Caitlin Smith uh from the mayor's office, just to provide testimony um of the the mayor's office support of the bill as hello Caitlin Smith, policy advisor to the mayor.

Um I'm just here to uh thank the Alder Woman for all of her time and consideration that she put into this board bill, as well, especially all of the city staff, um Miriam Elyzia, all the work that they've put into this and the planning commission to get this board bill to where it is, and that the mayor's office is in fully support of this board bill, and we're happy to uh answer any questions that anyone has from the mayor's office perspective and cow, do you have any questions for the mayor's office or anyone at the day?

So it is the mayor's office supportive of the bill as it's amended.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Um with that, uh again, I appreciate all the time and effort that's been put in this.

It is uh I think the most committee meetings the bill of mine has ever had is three.

Uh so this is now made a new record for me personally, and I appreciate that.

Um, and all the people who've been here uh who who are uh not paid to show up here.

I really especially appreciate appreciate you.

But for everyone uh who's come and weighed in, whether it's for a specific viewpoint or uh as a member of the community, uh your voices are so important, and I hope that you feel they've been heard.

Uh so with that uh I would uh uh ask for a due pass recommendation from this committee on board bill 49 I make a motion that we pass board bill 49 as amended in committee with the due pass recommendation second it was moved by auto I'm sorry vice chair sign and seconded by Alderman Browning that we pass board bill 49 as amended in committee with the due pass recommendation madam clerk please call the roll alderman cohn aldermans weiser aye vice chair sonye aye alderman Browning aye alderman Aldridge aye chair clerk hubbard aye alderman cohn aye we have six aye votes thank you thank you Alderman Ms.

Weisser we're gonna go back in the agenda to the approval of the minutes uh accept the motions to approve the minutes from Tuesday June 30th and Wednesday July 1st.

So moved second it was moved by vice chair signing and seconded by Alderman Browning that we approve the minutes from June 30th and July 1st with the call of a previous role by Audible Miss Sweiser with no objections so we have approved the minutes.

Madam Clerk, are there any resolutions for review?

We have none.

Any additional committee discussions?

We have none.

Any written testimony?

We have 16 written testimony on board bill 49 as amended in committee.

Any announcements?

Right with that, I'll accept a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

It was moved by vice chair Sanye and seconded by Alderman Browning with the call for previous role by Audible Miss Wizard with no objection.

We are adjourned.

Everyone have a blessed day.