COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO · DATA CENTERS
Colorado Springs council voted 7–2 on September 17 to postpone its Project Taurus decision until April 13, 2027, KRCC’s Briana Heaney reported. KRCC reported three arrests during the contentious hearing; The Gazette later reported four (see update below).
Claim: Raeden’s co-owner told council that an existing local data center used 40 megawatts. Colorado Springs Utilities’ CEO said its largest current data-center customer used about six.
Check: That discrepancy matters when an applicant uses another facility as reassurance. A comparison should survive scrutiny before it becomes part of the case for approval.
Concern: Residents questioned low-frequency noise and whether enforcement provisions were specific enough. Those are substantive questions. Disrupting a hearing does not answer them, and disorder should not erase them.
Outcome: The decision was postponed, not a final rejection. The additional time creates an opportunity to clarify the evidence and obligations.
Update, September 18: The Gazette’s Alexander Edwards reported that four people were arrested and one was tased after an altercation with police. Developer Raeden said conduct around the project had “crossed the line from passionate disagreement” into threats and intimidation; it did not describe specific threats, and police said they were not tracking any specific threats before the meeting. Raeden said it is weighing whether the project is the right partnership for the company. Read The Gazette’s story (September 18, 2026).
Location Decision takeaway
A credible development case needs accurate comparisons and enforceable commitments. Officials should protect orderly public participation; applicants should arrive with answers that can be checked. Threats and intimidation have no place in that process.
Original reporting: Briana Heaney, KRCC/Colorado Public Radio, September 17, 2026.
About this item: Contested Ground items are sourced and written by AI from the credited reporting and public records linked above, following Location Decision’s editorial standards. We publish them to track disputes over what America builds and to inform Location Decision’s broader editorial analysis. They are not independent reporting by our staff.