Project River's community meeting underwhelms attendee

I attended the Sept. 1 Project River community meeting hoping to hear clear answers. Instead, I left wondering why land-use decisions should be made before so much of the work is completed. Mitchell Simpson acknowledged that Project River currently has only '20, 30% engineering drawings' and said the land-use change needs to occur before they proceed further. Traffic and environmental studies have also reportedly not been completed. There is still no committed end user, and TVA's interconnection study remains underway. Yet the public is being given firm assurances about an approximately $11.3 billion investment: jobs, water, electric bills, noise and environmental performance. An $11 billion project should not be moved forward on $11 billion worth of promises. There are also differences between Project River's public materials and those of its engineering firm. Azure Engineering describes a five-phase power project beginning with 100 MW of natural-gas generation targeted for Q3 2028. Project River's website describes four phases beginning with 250 MW. Which plan is current? Project River also proposes 500 MW of biomass generation using approximately six million tons of biomass annually, along with claims involving biochar, carbon-negative power and water recovered from biomass drying. Where has this particular combination been successfully demonstrated at a comparable commercial scale? If anywhere, these projections deserve independent verification. I was disappointed in the meeting. Much of the evening was a prepared presentation when residents came to be heard and ask questions. Bradley County unanimously adopted significant data-center safeguards earlier this year. Annexation should not become a means of obtaining weaker protections simply because jurisdiction changes. Finally, if Project River can not be approved as presently proposed under Bradley County's rules, the public deserves to know exactly which requirements would change through annexation into Cleveland. One County. One Standard. – Cynthia Tanty, Charleston