Sabey Data Center Building E public comment period: November 3, 2025, 12 a.m. - December 14, 2025, 11:59 p.m.

Comment From: Maddy Anonymous

12/15/25 @ 12:59 AM

This project should not be approved, as it will add to the already disproportionate burden of pollution on Quincy. There are safer, cleaner, more renewable sources of backup energy that should be used instead of diesel generators! This project goes a...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Margie Bone

12/15/25 @ 12:18 AM

Out of concern for the residents in the area, additional diesel generators should not be approved. Generators cause significant pollution, including with fine (<2.5) particles, linked to asthma, cardiovascular disease and cancer. The Quincy area already has a higher than average burden of air pollution, so it is a matter of fairness that the community should not face the additional burden of more generators. The cumulative burden of all projects must be considered.

There are cleaner alternatives, for example battery storage and renewable energy, that ar...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Rachel Budelsky-Olson

12/14/25 @ 10:19 PM

Dear Department of Ecology,

I'm writing to express my dismay at the possibility of a data center permit approval that includes using diesel backup generators.

I urge Ecology to deny or substantially revise the permit for Sabey's proposed diesel gen...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Scott McClay

12/14/25 @ 9:52 PM

Ecology must do better! Deny the permit for 19 new diesel generators:
they pollute an already overburdened area, esp concerning are PM2.5 emissions, and more research shows how severe their health impacts are;
there are clean alternatives! eg, batter...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Cory Wilmarth

12/14/25 @ 8:59 PM

Do not allow additional diesel generators in Quincy, WA. You know this is wrong.

No attachments

Comment From: Meryl Farrar

12/14/25 @ 8:45 PM

Quincy faces disproportionate air-pollution burdens, raising serious environmental-justice and public-health concerns. Ecology has the authority to require Best Available Control Technology or cleaner backup power alternatives, such as battery storag...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Darlene Schanfald

12/14/25 @ 8:22 PM

RE: Sabey Data Center

Mr. Finley:
I am concerned about particulate emissions, of any size. They will have consequential human health, wildlife and environmental impacts. Emissions do not stay local; they circulate and, depending on the weather, drif...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Savannah Elmore

12/14/25 @ 7:34 PM

I am urging the Department of Ecology to deny permits for diesel generators at the Sabey data center in Quincy. A move like adding diesel generators is opposite to the stated goals of the State of WA in regards to environmental impact and sustainabil...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Evelina Babcock

12/14/25 @ 7:01 PM

I urge Ecology to deny or substantially revise the permit for Sabey's proposed diesel generators in Quincy.

The disproportionate air pollution burdens Quincy is facing should be a concern for us all. As both a long time resident of this beautiful s...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Erin King

12/14/25 @ 6:51 PM

I urge Ecology to deny or substantially revise the permit for Sabey's proposed diesel generators in Quincy. The application underestimates real-world particulate emissions, fails to account for startup and shutdown pollution, and continues a pattern ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Lea Kent

12/14/25 @ 6:48 PM

I oppose permitting more diesel generators for this data center project. Increasing fossil fuel generation capacity is contrary to the State's climate commitments and is entirely unnecessary with the broad availability of battery backup technology. D...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Danielle Gembala

12/14/25 @ 6:32 PM

I am writing to ask Ecology to deny or completely alter the permit for Sabey's proposed diesel generators in Quincy. Sabey's proposal does not address the real-world particulate emissions it will create. For example, it does not account for startup a...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Stefanie Cook

12/14/25 @ 6:21 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Lisa Koch

12/14/25 @ 6:19 PM

I urge the committee to reject this proposal. It substantially underestimates emissions, which will disproportionately affect rural and poor communities. If there are not strict conditions to mitigate these harms, the project should not be approved.

No attachments

Comment From: Susan Lawless

12/14/25 @ 6:17 PM

You must stop the new diesel generators in Quincy. They will increase dangerous air pollution like NOx and toxic diesel exhaust. You need to require cleaner backup power--not more diesel. Evaluate the cumulative effects of the diesel--instead of the...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kathleen McMillan

12/14/25 @ 6:14 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Emily Johnston

12/14/25 @ 6:10 PM

I urge you to deny the permit for Sabey's 19 new diesel generators in Quincy, which is already suffering an undue burden from the use of fossil fuels for data centers.

Allowing new "emergency" generators ensures that they will be used for years—and ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Danna Dal Porto

12/14/25 @ 6:10 PM

These are comments from Danna Dal Porto, Quincy, WA, related to the Sabey Data Center (Quincy) Building "E" expansion of 13 diesel generators.

I have several specific questions. Has the Federal Environmental Protection Agency approved the use of th...↓e Monte Carlo method to determine emissions from diesel generators? Since Monte Carlo uses math and probability to determine emissions, is this a tested and authorized method to determine emissions in Quincy? Please answer those two questions. I am requesting a tested and true method to determine emissions and I reject using Monte Carlo. Actually, the name of that testing method is close to correct. Monte Carlo is an historic gambling center and using Monte Carlo is like gambling on the answer based not on actual testing, but gambling on probability and math to get the right answer.

In looking for the determination of BACT, I understand that BACT can be plus 30% the cost of controls. Where are the controls on Quincy emissions? What did Ecology use to determine the BACT for Sabey? What is BACT on the original generators and the 13 new generators? Please answer these questions. With a total of 105 diesel generators how can Sabey not be Title 5? Please explain

According to the Environmental Justice Screen, Quincy is ranked a 92% in our level of pm2.5. What is Ecology's intent? Will Quincy be allowed to violate the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in toxic emissions? Ecology continues to permit data center expansion and construction without requiring controls. Residents are living in a deadly mix of toxins over us and our children. My clear understanding is that the Washington State Department of Ecology had a mission, to protect community health. To my mind, Ecology is not protecting the people in Quincy.

Quincy is a perfect fit for data center construction. Lots of cheap land, use of City of Quincy Water, compliant local leadership, low income working people, and an immigrant population. Added to this, the State of Washington has made the tax advantage attractive for this type of construction. Unfortunately, the environmental and health dangers for local residents has been understated. Initially, Ecology listed stroke, heart attack and breathing problems as concerns from emissions. Those health concerns can be seen easily and can be readily identified in local residents. Now, Ecology does not list those problems (stroke, heart attack, breathing) but focuses on the dangers of cancer from the data center emissions. Cancer is a long term disease, mostly not noticed for even several years. The cancer dangers are there but not in the same way as a deadly stroke or heart attack. The focus of disease favors the data center developer as cancers can show up long after a person moves away from Quincy. The effects are not direct and the connection not as easy to see. Do not be fooled, The emissions from over 460 permitted diesel generators inside the Quincy City limits is deadly and Ecology must know this.

I want to point out the number of Washington State Department of Ecology documents that have landed on my computer very recently. First was an opportunity to write to the General Data Center Document update. Then came the opportunity to write to the issue of Overburdened Communities outreach. Then came the request for comments on Cyrus data center changes. Next was the eagerly awaited Governor's Working Group report on Data Centers. Now I am commenting on changes at Sabey. All of these "opportunities" for Comment happened over the Thanksgiving and Christmas seasons. Several of us have noticed this in the past. When we asked about the timing of documents, we were told that Ecology could not determine when data center developers would file for permits. I would have you look to see that most of these are from Ecology, not companies. I trust that this pile-up of documents is not intentional but I would request that consideration be made to the timing of Ecology requests so they are scattered in the rest of the year, not piled up at Christmas.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Danna Dal Porto
Quincy

No attachments

Comment From: Alice Lockhart

12/14/25 @ 5:55 PM

I'm writing to ask that the Sabey data center permit be denied, because the cumulative effects of multiple data centers, and concomitant pollution from testing and running diesel generators on the Quincy community has not been sufficiently studied or...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Devon Endsley

12/14/25 @ 5:27 PM

I don't approve of this motion. Please fight for climate change and anti-data centers which are contributing to growing climate issues.

No attachments

Comment From: PATRICIA MARTIN

12/14/25 @ 3:25 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Stephanie Tejas

12/14/25 @ 3:19 PM

I want to express my concerns about the idea these generators are "emergency" but they are saying to produce multiple tons of emissions per year? As if the generators are supposed to be supplying power regularly? Are they that unreliable? If this ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Carrie Anonymous

12/14/25 @ 2:50 PM

I strongly urge the Ecology department to either deny or significantly revise the permit for Sabey's proposed diesel generators in Quincy. The application downplays actual particulate emissions, neglects the pollution generated during startup and shu...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Sabrina Sandberg

12/14/25 @ 2:36 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Margo Polley

12/14/25 @ 2:30 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Desiree Stefens

12/14/25 @ 2:16 PM

Communities hosting data centers are frequently rural, agricultural, or communities of color, raising serious environmental-justice concerns when diesel pollution is concentrated there.
Cleaner alternatives exist, including battery energy storage sys...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Abraham Miller

12/14/25 @ 1:01 PM

This is not the standard I accept for the WA dep of ecology decisions. Washington's Climate Commitment Act obligates the state to reduce fossil-fuel dependence across all sectors, and in this case there are cleaner alternatives for emergency energy s...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Theo McGillivray

12/14/25 @ 12:33 PM

Diseal generators are major polluters for air and noise. The WA Dept of Ecology needs to look at the long-term impacts of this on the community (including equity), agriculture, the environment, and wildlife. There are many other energy sources for ge...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Andrea M O'Ferrall

12/14/25 @ 11:14 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: John Bito

12/14/25 @ 10:30 AM

Ecology should not approve the permit for Sabey's proposed diesel generators in Quincy as written. The application underestimates real-world particulate emissions, fails to account for startup and shutdown pollution, and continues a pattern of piecem...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Anthony Andrews

12/14/25 @ 10:22 AM

I strongly oppose the approval of new diesel generators for this data center. We can't allow diesel to become the default power source for new data centers. We must require cleaner energy sources. Approving this application would undermine the state'...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Aven Frey

12/14/25 @ 10:17 AM

We do not need any more data centers, and we especially do not need any more pollution spewing diesel generators in under-resourced neighborhoods. What an obscene break from the climate commitment act. This project takes us in the exact opposite dire...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Simon Knaphus

12/14/25 @ 10:16 AM

Please deny the permit for additional generators.

No attachments

Comment From: Daniel Haas

12/14/25 @ 9:04 AM

This project puts Washington residents and fragile ecosystems at risk for no discernable benefit. These generators will devalue land and destroy habitat. Their purpose is to provide power to a data center that exists only to empower the already power...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jesse French

12/13/25 @ 9:54 PM

I urge the Dept of Ecology to deny the application for diesel generators, because there are cleaner alternatives available (e.g. battery backup) that do not conflict with Washington state's climate commitments and don't contribute to pollution in vul...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Gabriel Kennedy-Gibbens

12/13/25 @ 9:24 PM

Ecology must deny the permit for Sabey's proposed diesel generators in Quincy. Diesel generators create more air pollution, which will negatively affect the local community of Quniy, which is already experiencing and adjusting to unprecedented growth...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Patrick James

12/13/25 @ 8:26 PM

Diesel is the steroidal version of fossil fuels. Please consider the below and seek alternatives...

Policy research on data centers shows that diesel generators are one of the most harmful and least scrutinized parts of data-center infrastructure:
...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Alex C.

12/13/25 @ 8:13 PM

hell no - no more air pollution in Quincy and Washington state. It really pisses me off that you (the Ecology!) are not denying this kind of outrageous requests on the spot, wasting everyone's time. Surprised you are still not requiring these super-r...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

12/13/25 @ 7:25 PM

There is no good reason to approve this application when considering its impacts on community health and overall pollution, especially the way this impacts some of our most vulnerable communities in a gross expression of ecological racism and classis...↓m. That's not even to mention the ways in which new diesel infrastructure undermines Washington's Climate Commitment Act and the state's legally binding obligation to reduce fossil-fuel dependence across all sectors. Each new diesel generator locks in years of pollution and carbon emissions at a time when cleaner alternatives are available and necessary. Is the Department of Ecology truly not beholden to the Climate Commitment Act? Is Ecology truly more devoted to the profit of the very few who would benefit from this new diesel infrastructure than they are to protecting our environment and the communities that call this place home?

Claims about the negative impact of diesel on people and environment aren't speculative, they are grounded in science. Even if the federal government has become a fully anti-science machine, I expect better of Washington State and it's departments. It is known that diesel backup generators produce significant local air pollution, including fine particulate matter (PM2.5), nitrogen oxides (NOₓ), and toxic diesel exhaust, all of which are linked to asthma, heart disease, and cancer. Quincy already faces disproportionately high air-pollution burdens and ranks in the 92nd percentile nationally for PM2.5 exposure. Why exactly would Ecology want to make this worse? Diesel exhaust is a regulated toxic pollutant linked to cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness, and cancer, and as such additional uncontrolled diesel generators should under no circumstances be permitted. The potential impact of these extra generators on largely rural community raises serious environmental-justice concerns and contradicts Ecology's duty to protect public health, and raises serious questions about the Department of Ecology's stated intent to approve the application, presumably regardless of what feedback is received during public comment. Are these extra diesel generators really worth sidelining democratic processes by making a decision before public comment has even heard?

Furthermore, because this kind of permitting is often done piecemeal, the cumulative impact on communities like Quincy is often hidden. Quincy is experiencing the cumulative impacts of many data-center expansions, yet each diesel generator permit is evaluated in isolation. This approach hides the true burden on community health, air quality, and long-term sustainability -- to what end? Why go about this in a way which seemingly knowingly underestimates the long term impact of these generators? Who exactly benefits? Who profits? Ecology must evaluate projects based on their full lifecycle and cumulative environmental impacts, including routine generator testing, startup and shutdown emissions, and the growing concentration of diesel infrastructure in Quincy.

Communities hosting data centers are frequently rural, agricultural, or communities of color, raising serious environmental-justice concerns when diesel pollution is concentrated there.
Cleaner alternatives exist, including battery energy storage systems and renewable-based backup power, but regulators often fail to require them. Approving this application would be a betrayal of these communities and a gross demonstration of environmental racism and classism. Ecology must NOT approve this application, despite its undemocratic stated intent.

No attachments

Comment From: Linda Avis Scott

12/13/25 @ 7:05 PM

Considering the increase in polluting emissions being proposed, please deny this permit and require use of battery powered generators.
Reducing the impacts of increased emissions on nearby neighborhoods is much more important than allowing a profit ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Melissa Howard

12/13/25 @ 4:38 PM

I urge the Department of Ecology to reconsider approving the permits to add new diesel generators for the Sabey data center in Quincy. We must avoid diesel backup power for the health of the community. The current proposal underestimates real-world p...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Marilyn Boyd

12/13/25 @ 4:29 PM

I am writing to urge you to NOT APPROVE more diesel generators at Sabey Data Centers in Quincy, WA.
Having any diesel generators at this point of our climate emergency is abomniable. Adding more in Quincy, already disproportionately affected by pollu...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Alexa Loyola

12/13/25 @ 4:03 PM

Please deny or revise the permit for sabeys proposed diesel generators in Quincy. This application underestimates real world particulate emissions, fails to account for startup and shutdown pollution, and continues a pattern of piecemeal permitting t...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Allison Bell

12/13/25 @ 2:38 PM

Quincy already faces disproportionately high air pollution burdens and ranks in the 92nd percentile nationally for PM2.5 exposure. Diesel exhaust is a regulated toxic pollutant linked to cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness, and cancer. Permit...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jason Arnhill

12/13/25 @ 1:38 PM

While I agree that emergency power is important for the efficient running of a data center, diesel generators are the worst solution for our environment, health, and sustainability. A battery storage system fueled by renewable energy sources, hydroge...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Sevens Baertsch Kovalchick

12/13/25 @ 1:37 PM

As a resident of washington who wants the government to make good rational decisions that will steward our state into a sustainable, equitable future, I urge Ecology to deny the permit for proposed diesel generators in Quincy. Approving the permit wo...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jackson Hall

12/13/25 @ 1:13 PM

The emission of literally tons of nitrous oxides will be horrible for the air quality. There are also cleaner backup alternatives like battery storage. Please deny the permitting.

No attachments

Comment From: Leslie Zavisca

12/11/25 @ 1:47 PM

Do NOT approve. Do the right thing and put humans in the local community first. Do not prioritize businesses and wealthy technocrats over the health, safety, and well being of local residents.

No attachments

Comment From: Lauren Redfield

12/09/25 @ 8:05 PM

I urge Ecology not to approve this project unless there are far stronger protections for community health and a clear shift away from diesel dependence.

Ecology's own outreach materials highlight serious concerns about diesel exhaust, fine particula...↓te pollution, and the cumulative impacts of data-center generators in Quincy. If Ecology is genuinely concerned, as it has stated, then approving another set of diesel generators is inconsistent with those concerns.

At a minimum, Ecology should require modern emission-control technologies, such as diesel particulate filters, and should strongly consider requiring a transition to cleaner backup-power alternatives, including battery storage or renewable-based systems. These technologies already exist and are in use elsewhere. If Sabey cannot or will not commit to cleaner alternatives, then this project simply should not move forward.

Another core issue is process. Quincy is experiencing the combined impacts of multiple data-center expansions, yet each permit is evaluated in isolation, as if it has no relationship to the dozens of generators already installed or being proposed. This piecemeal approach hides the true cumulative burden on a small rural community.

We need a permitting framework that evaluates a project's full lifecycle environmental impact, including cumulative air-quality degradation, health risks, long-term diesel reliance, and climate implications, rather than treating each generator request as a standalone event.

This proposal also conflicts with Washington's climate commitments. Under the Climate Commitment Act, our state is legally obligated to reduce emissions and accelerate the transition away from fossil-fuel infrastructure. Adding 13 more diesel generators, especially when cleaner technologies are available, runs directly counter to those commitments. Every new diesel unit locks in years of pollution, carbon emissions, and ongoing fossil-fuel dependency. Ecology should not approve infrastructure that undermines the climate goals the state has set and the public overwhelmingly supports.

Finally, I urge Ecology to center the people who actually live with these impacts. Diesel pollution disproportionately harms children, elders, agricultural workers, and community members with asthma or respiratory challenges. Quincy deserves the same health protections afforded to larger or more politically powerful communities.

For these reasons, I ask Ecology to require cleaner technologies, conduct a full cumulative-impact review, and, if those protections cannot be met, to deny the permit.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

No attachments

Comment From: Bradley Dosch

12/09/25 @ 6:48 PM

Washington residents do not need more data centers, we need clean air. We cannot afford to emit more harmful pollutants into the air, even if it is within allowed emissions thresholds. Every year gets warmer and warmer and putting more greenhouse gas...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Cole Johnston

12/08/25 @ 7:22 PM

Adding unnecessary fossil fuel generation in the middle of a climate crisis is a horrible idea. The health of the general public has been repeatedly sacrificed for profit. This practice needs to end.

No attachments

Comment From: Lauren R.

11/28/25 @ 10:13 PM

I do not support this project due to the environmental and equity issues that surround it. I also believe strongly in having a public hearing and environmental impact study done. This industry creates far more problems than it solves and this will no...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Luke A

11/18/25 @ 1:12 PM

This should not be approved. Data centers are already wreaking havoc on the environment, and the companies that utilize them do not pay their fair share of taxes or reinvest in the community.

No attachments

Comment From: Suraj Mirpuri

11/17/25 @ 10:07 PM

In Oregon, when data centers seek permitting for these kinds of backup generator systems, there are incentives that fast track permitting if the operators install catalytic convertors, filters, and scrubbers / other technological mitigations (example...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Karen Gibson

11/17/25 @ 9:47 AM

No. Enough is enough. More data centers using up space and resources for technology that will destroy jobs is not what WA needs. The public that will have to live around these proliferating centers deserve to be protected, not encroached upon simply ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Janelle Gavin

11/17/25 @ 7:57 AM

This project should have a public hearing. It will cause a major disruption to the surrounding area and should not go unchecked.

No attachments

Comment From: Carol Reynolds

11/17/25 @ 1:41 AM

I feel strongly that a project of this magnitude should require an environmental impact statement, but more than that, it should be approved by the voters of Washington state.

No attachments

Comment From: John Rose

11/16/25 @ 11:32 PM

This is an important issue for the community and needs a public hearing.

No attachments

Comment From: megan dunn

11/16/25 @ 10:19 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Paul Birkeland

11/16/25 @ 10:07 PM

You definitely need to hold a public hearing on this. Data centers are eating our power, polluting our air, and wrecking the climate. Not to mention corrupting the infosphere. Data center operation is a much bigger deal than it used to be. We all see...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Roberto Guillen

11/16/25 @ 9:26 PM

Public hearing is needed.

No attachments

Comment From: Jhoana Duran

11/16/25 @ 8:54 PM

A public hearing is needed.

No attachments

Comment From: Nicole Huff

11/16/25 @ 8:51 PM

I would like a public hearing on this matter. As residents, we want less emissions and fewer data centers eating up our energy resources.

No attachments

Comment From: Linda Takamine

11/16/25 @ 8:50 PM

Yes, please have a public hearing

No attachments

Comment From: Mike Huff

11/16/25 @ 8:24 PM

This issue is important to the community and it deserves a public hearing!

No attachments

Comment From: Robert Whitner

11/16/25 @ 8:20 PM

Any data center project is impactful to the community and warrants public review and comment.

No attachments

Comment From: Savannah Elmore

11/16/25 @ 8:17 PM

This is an important issue and needs to have a public hearing.

No attachments

Comment From: Michael Apfelbeck

11/16/25 @ 8:17 PM

The diesel generators will cause noise pollution, particulate pollution, and spew large amounts of greenhouse gasses; all this harms the public while benefiting private interests and should not be allowed.

No attachments

Comment From: Teresa Aronson

11/16/25 @ 8:13 PM

I strongly urge the Dept. of Ecology to hold a public hearing on Sabey's construction application. The projected increases in emissions are significant. The community should have the opportunity to express their concerns in a public hearing.

No attachments

Comment From: Jacqueline Rasmussen

11/16/25 @ 7:31 PM

I would like to attend a public hearing to learn more about the growing concern of air pollution and air quality with the need you have for more diesel engines.

No attachments

Comment From: Jean Mendoza

11/16/25 @ 6:46 PM

Please schedule a hearing. Data centers are incredibly resource-intensive and bad for the
environment. Making one bigger just means it will consume even more resources.

No attachments

Comment From: Elaine Packard

11/16/25 @ 5:52 PM

In addition to air quality concerns, I have concerns about the overuse of our local resources, i.e., water, farmlands, and electricity.

No attachments

Comment From: deb martinson

11/16/25 @ 4:18 PM

Please schedule a hearing. Data centers are incredibly resource-intensive and bad for the environment. Making one bigger just means it will consume even more resources.

No attachments

Comment From: Darlene Schanfald

11/16/25 @ 2:52 PM

I request there be a public hearing on the air quality permit to allow the addition of more diesel engines at the Sabey Data Center, and that citizens be able to join both in person and on line.

The increased number of these centers are gulping up w...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Karyn Olivarrias

11/16/25 @ 1:52 PM

Public hearing is needed.

No attachments

Comment From: Madeline Goodwin

11/16/25 @ 1:47 PM

Please hold a public hearing on this application! We do not need additional greenhouse gas emissions in our atmosphere.

No attachments

Comment From: PATRICIA MARTIN

11/16/25 @ 12:48 PM

I am writing to request a Public Hearing. Those of us who attend always appreciate the presentation that Ecology provides. The documents can be overwhelming to residents, so presentations help to level the playing field for those who might want to co...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Carol Doerr

11/16/25 @ 12:24 PM

PLEASE schedule a public hearing on this issue. In this era of global warming, adding fossil fuel sources to power an energy-intensive data center is irresponsible. It jeopardizes not only air qualitty but also would increase CO2 emissions. Sabey sho...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Sara Trujillo

11/16/25 @ 12:21 PM

Our priority needs to be protecting what is essential and critical to survival. The environment is, AI is not.

No attachments

Comment From: Adam Hudak

11/16/25 @ 11:56 AM

No data center!

No attachments

Comment From: Forest Galloway

11/16/25 @ 11:29 AM

I'm requesting a public hearing regarding the Sabey data collection center. I oppose the construction. Across our country data centers cause major problems in the communities they are built in. When a company builds a data center, they often promise ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Alice Lockhart

11/16/25 @ 11:14 AM

Please consider this my request for a public hearing, thanks!

No attachments

Comment From: Jennifer Schwarz

11/16/25 @ 10:30 AM

Requesting a public hearing regarding the Sabey Data center

No attachments

Comment From: Yael Yanich

11/16/25 @ 9:58 AM

A public hearing is needed. Air quality should not be compromised..

No attachments

Comment From: Elizabeth Verdier

11/16/25 @ 9:47 AM

This project is significant enough that a public hearing should be called, so questions can be answered real-time. Thank you.

No attachments

Comment From: Janet Lennon-Jones

11/16/25 @ 8:43 AM

This is a terrible proposal and the public deserves the hearing to make our voices heard. Wr must prioritize our health over corporate wealth!

No attachments

Comment From: Thomas Chartrand

11/15/25 @ 1:03 PM

Please hold a public hearing on this proposal - it's unacceptable to allow companies to use "emergency" generators to work around emissions limits.

No attachments

Comment From: Carrie Anonymous

11/15/25 @ 7:22 AM

Please hold a public hearing on this. The community deserves a say in this!

No attachments

Comment From: samuel so

11/14/25 @ 8:43 PM

I am a community member who is concerned about construction of data centers due to their emissions and offsetting costs to residents. Adding additional diesel generators onsite would lead to more air pollution that could hurt my community. I would li...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Olivia Rosane

11/14/25 @ 5:39 PM

As a Washington resident and environmental journalist, I think it is essential to hold a public hearing before installing any new diesel generators that will contribute to the state's climate emissions and to air pollution for the surrounding communi...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Priya Dhawka

11/14/25 @ 3:58 PM

I'm a community member who is concerned about data centers and their emissions. Adding additional diesel generators onsite would lead to more air pollution that could hurt my community. I would like there to be a public hearing before this applicatio...↓

No attachments

Comment From: A. G.

11/14/25 @ 3:32 PM

I am a community member concerned about the environmental impacts of data centers, particularly their emissions. Adding more onsite diesel generators will increase air pollution and potentially harm different communities. I am requesting that a publi...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Brynn Armbruster

11/14/25 @ 3:04 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Tiffany Alexander

11/14/25 @ 2:56 PM

Please hold a public hearing and study the environmental impacts deeper.

No attachments

Comment From: Nicole Baich

11/14/25 @ 2:04 PM

Curious that your would skip a public comment hearing.

How many more expansions will they have?

Where's the historical impact study these days centers will have in health and ecology?

Hate this.

No attachments

Comment From: Diana Rempe

11/14/25 @ 2:00 PM

I am writing to request a public hearing for the Sabey Data Center's request for additional diesel generators. This project needs public discussion.
please set a public hearing.
thank you
Diana Rempe
White Salmon, WA 98672

No attachments

Comment From: Wendy Gao

11/14/25 @ 1:59 PM

Dear Ecology,

Public hearings on this request for 13 new DIESEL generators is needed. This is significant increase in pollution and green house gas emissions in our state. All of us will be affected, not just Grant County. Please let the public voic...↓

No attachments

Comment From: William Campbell

11/14/25 @ 1:45 PM

Any additional pollution generation on this scale needs a public hearing, or should be outright denied.

No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

11/14/25 @ 11:28 AM

I am a community member concerned about the potential increased emissions impact on public health. I request a public hearing before this permit for more diesel generators is approved.

No attachments

Comment From: Suraj Mirpuri

11/13/25 @ 9:47 PM

Im very concerned with air quality in our state. Bringing generators online seems very unnecessary. I for one, am requesting a hearing.

No attachments

[ Previous Page / Next Page ]