FAQ

Yes, at the administrative planning-record level. The city approval letter says the development-plan modification was approved on June 10, 2026. Appeal status remains pending as of June 16, 2026.

No. The approval is a planning approval with conditions. It does not settle final utility terms, actual water consumption, building permits, state generator permits, post-construction sound levels, appeal outcome, operating performance, or broad subsidy claims.

The current project file does not support that as a Project Taurus fact. Raeden says the project uses closed-loop cooling, requires a 200,000-gallon initial fill, has zero daily cooling replacement water, and then uses about 200-400 gallons/day for staff/office use. Final water records are still needed.

Not in the captured public record. The record shows applicant water estimates and later utility, permit, and operating records still needed. Do not describe the 200-400 gallons/day estimate as an enforceable cap unless a later record supports that.

No. It narrows the cooling-water question. It does not settle final water-service records, construction drawings, maintenance/refill assumptions, leaks, landscaping, wastewater, actual bills, or operating data.

A materially water-intensive future redesign would need to be tested against City, CSU, building-permit, and utility records. It should not be described as already approved unless those records say so.

The project file uses 50 MW language. Final CSU service/cost records are still needed.

Public CSU materials describe large-load guardrails, including service agreements, collateral, and customer responsibility for certain required extensions or modifications. The Project Taurus-specific agreement, studies, collateral, and cost-recovery records are still needed.

Yes. The DLAA noise study says the project includes 30 enclosed diesel backup generators. Generator emissions and runtime limits require state permit and operating records.

DLAA modeled noise-code compliance. HEI independently modeled normal-operation noise near the closest residences and found close agreement with DLAA. That supports the model, not a guarantee of no audible impact.

The city approval letter says no Citywide Development Impact Police/Fire fees are required for this modification. The broader subsidy/incentive question is unresolved.

It is clearly politically salient and easy to turn into a fear-based shorthand. The current source corpus does not prove intentional manipulation, coordination, sponsorship, or turnout strategy by named actors.