Poliakoff & Associates, P.A. Advocacy No Comments

Northmark/Valara Data Center in Spartanburg, S.C.

Memorandum of Current Issues

By:      Gary W. Poliakoff, Attorney

Re:      Northmark Strategies Data Center, a/k/a Valara Holdings High Performance Compute Center located at 4000 S. Pine St., Spartanburg, SC 29302

Issue:  Application for Synthetic Minor Air Construction Permit by Submitted Valara March 4, 2026.

Note: Valara Holdings, LLC is a subsidiary of Northmark Strategies; the Facility is also referred to as: MOC-1 High Performance Compute Center

Procedural History

  On February 18, 2025, the Post & Courier reported that Spartanburg County Council had conducted an initial reading and a vote for a tax break for an “undisclosed company,” then referred to only as “Project Moc-1.” The same article quoted former County Councilman David Britt as saying that the project was “not a data center, and would “not use more power than the site’s existing facility.” As best as can be determined at this time, this newspaper article constitutes the first public information regarding this project, company name undisclosed. (Northmark now admits this project is a data center. Per the permit application submitted by Northmark/Valara in 2026, if approved, this will be one of the largest data centers in the U.S.)

In April of 2025, Spartanburg County approved a fee-in-lieu-of-tax agreement (a significant tax break) for this Northmark/Valara project. Shortly thereafter, Valara submitted an application to S.C. Department of Environmental Services (DES) for a Clean Air Act permit to allow air pollution resulting from proposed onsite power generation of approximately 50 Megawatts (MW). The permit application and the DES draft permit characterized the project as “minor,” based on the proposal of approximately 50 MW of onsite power generation (qualifying the project as a “minor” source, rather than a “major source” of air emissions, as defined by S.C. Regulation 61-62.70.2.)

 Note:   The characterization of this project as “minor” instead of “major” is highly significant to this discussion and the present controversies. Permitting for a “major” source requires more Public Notice and opportunity for public involvement, and requires more regulatory oversight. This characterization as “minor” (by the Permit Applicant, and facilitated thus far by S.C.DES) is inappropriate, misleading and a mischaracterization. This will prevent public disclosure regarding the full extent of its intended scope of power generation onsite, and to secure approvals by Spartanburg County without the public knowing the full extent.  The initial request for a Synthetic Minor Permit would appear to be an effort to mislead the public into believing that the present would be limited to power generation of only 50 MW, rather than disclose the accurate intended scope which would meet the definition of “major” source of air pollution, per the regulatory program established by the Federal Clean Air Act and by the South Carolina Air Pollution Control Regulations and Standards.

On July 18, 2025, S.C.DES issued a Public Notice for a Draft Air Synthetic Minor Construction Permit, for construction of a data center to be powered by twenty-four 2103 KW Natural gas generators. As the notice announced the project as constituting a “minor” source of air emissions, coupled with such minimal actual public notice, the public still remained uninformed and misled as to the already established plans for the scope of the project. On September 17, 2025, DES issued a final Air Permit, which authorized construction and operation of the twenty-four 2103 KW Natural gas fired generators (totaling approximately 50 MW of power generation) and the air pollution expected to result therefrom.

The regulatory record shows that a mere three months after issuance of its requested Air  Synthetic Minor Construction Permit, Valara asked DES for authority for an additional 400 MW of onsite gas-fired power generation (total of 450 MW), which is massively greater than the relatively innocuous 50 MW previously requested. 450 MW of power generation is an enormous amount, larger than many power plants owned by power utility companies regulated by multiple state and federal agencies, which generate power for entire cities and communities. The DES log for this current requested Permit Modification shows that Revisions to this application were made on December 24, 2025, March 13, 2026, and April 21, 2026, none of which were disclosed to the public at that point. On April 22, 2026, the Post & Courier published another article, “Spartanburg Data Center that Got Tax Breaks Wants 400 Megawatt Energy Production Increase.” As best as can be determined presently, this was the first information provided to the public about Valara’s request for the modification/increase, as neither Northmark/Valara nor DES had issued any public notice about the requested increase thus far, despite the 4 to 5 months of Northmark/Valara and DES activity already ongoing. It does not appear that the public had yet been informed of Northmark/Valara’s intent to construct and operate 450 MW of onsite power generation. Since DES issued the Draft Modification Permit, and again at a public information session on June 24, 2026 (the day before the mandated DES Public Hearing), Northmark/Valara admits that its intention from the start, when it first began communicating with Spartanburg County Council in early 2025, was to construct and operate a 450 MW power generation facility. Yet Northmark/Valara’s 2025 first round of Permit Application activity, as well as the DES Draft Permit, and DES final Permit (September 17, 2025), failed to provide Public Notice of the planned and intended increase.

At the time that Northmark/Valara sought DES authority for its permit modification (a mere 3 months after obtaining the initial permit), the 50 MW permitted project construction had likely not commenced, if it had even commenced. This lends support that the application for the 50 MW facility was likely a subterfuge, a deception apparently for the purpose of evading public scrutiny and to keep the public uninformed about its true plans until after the ruse of the 50MW project had been approved by Spartanburg County and DES.

Northmark/Valara apparently claims that it provided full information about its consistent plan from the start of its involvement with the County Council in early 2025, to construct and operate onsite 450 MW power generation to power its planned data center. Thus far we have seen no support for that assertion. If such public information was provided prior to April of 2026, Northmark/Valara should disclose what information they allege was provided, and when, where and how such notice was disseminated.

During the public comment period for the initial draft synthetic minor air permit, held July 18, 2025, through August 16, 2025, DES received comments, questions and concerns. DES then issued its Response to Comments on Air Quality. The available DES documents related to the initial permit make no public mention of any plan or intent by Northmark/Valara to seek to enormously increase the project. The available public information was that Northmark/Valara was seeking a facility that included power generation of only 50 MW. As the project in 2025 was portrayed to the public as “minor” in all respects, with allegedly minimal expected emissions, serious public outcry was avoided (likely as Northmark/Valara and DES had hoped and intended).

The proposed massive increase, from 50 to 450 MW of onsite power generation, will result in the following air pollution emissions, predicted by Northmark/Valara in its supporting documentation:

  • (“TPY” = Tons per year)
  • 220 TPY of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
  • 201 TPY of Carbon Monoxide (CO)
  • 158 TPY of Particulate Matter (PM 5)
  • 5 TPY of Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
  • 60 TPY of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
  • 19 TPY of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP), including 9.40 TPY of formaldehyde.

Note:   The above predicted figures, furnished by Northmark/Valara, are based upon air dispersion modeling performed by Northmark/Valara’s consultants. Experience from years of regulatory history shows that emission predictions by permit applicants are understated extremely often, once actual operations begin and real-world    monitoring data emerges.

 These predicted emissions constitute an extraordinary increase in air pollution, including substances well known to adversely affect human health and quality of life. The increase in air pollution in Spartanburg County will be dramatic.

To create the requested 400 MW increase, Northmark/Valara proposes to construct and operate five 17 MW natural gas fired combustion turbines, and six 54 MW natural gas fired combustion turbines, in addition to the natural gas fired generators approved in the initial permit.

“Minor” vs. “Major” Source of Air Pollutants

(Title V of the federal Clean Air Act, and S.C. Air Pollution Control Regulations and Standards, Regulation 61-62.1, -62.4, and -62.5, and 61-62.70 in particular)

“Major” and “Minor” sources of air pollutants are defined in numerous settings and categories. For permitting purposes, as well as for regulator purposes (including design requirements, monitoring, compliance, enforcement, demonstration of compliance capability, etc.), much more public notice and allowance of public participation are required, as well as much more in regulatory requirements. The definitions and qualifying provisions for a “major” source of air pollutants include not only what the source emits or is projected to emit, but also if the source has “the potential to emit” air pollutants. For example, S.C. Regulation 61-62.70.2 (y) provides:

“Potential to emit” means the maximum capacity of a stationary source to emit any air pollutant under its physical operational design.

The predicted emissions, based on Northmark/Valara’s own consultant’s air dispersion modeling, qualify this project as a “major” source of air pollutants. Yet Northmark/Valara’s permitting stratagem of feigning a facility with only 50 MW of power generation, facilitated thus far by DES, subverts the permitting and regulatory mission. Combined with Northmark/Valara’s concealment of its true intentions and its obfuscation, the rights of its neighbors to be informed and to participate in matters affecting health and quality of life have been denigrated; but worse, an unhealthy, offensive and detrimental operation is in the process of being inappropriately inserted into their community.

If not done for purposes of undermining the legitimate mission of the permitting and regulatory programs, there appears to be NO legitimate reason for their machinations in the fabrication of a 50 MW facility. Northmark/Valara now admits that its intent from the start was to construct and operate a 450 MW power generation facility onsite of its planned data center. Otherwise, had it the inclination to act in good faith and in accord with the objectives of the regulatory and permitting systems, it would have openly and honestly requested a permit for its intended 450 MW facility from the start and not misled the public into believing this to be a 50 MW, legitimately “minor” source of air pollution.  With Northmark/Valara now admitting that it intended 450 MW of power generation from the start, its fabrication of a 50 MW project for its initial permit is difficult if not impossible to be characterized as anything other than duplicitous.

The present maneuvers by Northmark/Valara, accommodated by DES, appear little more than intended undermining of the permitting and regulatory program purposes. Clearly, and as acknowledged by both Northmark/Valara (in its current permit modification request), and DES (in its Draft Synthetic Minor Construction Permit), this facility “will be” a “Major” source of air pollution.

From Northmark/Valara’s Modification Application for a Synthetic Minor Permit:

The facility will become a Major Source of emissions under the Title V Operating Permit Program. The Facility will submit a Title V application in accordance with requirements once construction is complete.

From the DES Draft Synthetic Minor Permit/Statement of Basis:

With the project, the facility will become major source under SC Regulation 61-62.70 Title V Operating Permit Program. The facility will be required to submit an application for a Title V Operating Permit within 12 months of when the first turbine or generator becomes operational.

In other words, the proposal is to allow them to call the project “minor,” through construction and thereafter during a full year of operation, before having to request the permit for a “major” source. Northmark/Valara, DES, Spartanburg County Council, and finally the affected Community, only now have the necessary information this this will be a “major” source of air pollution. Yet the manipulations of the permitting and regulatory programs are continuing the charade that this is a “minor” source. This Facility will likely adversely affect the health and quality of life of the affected community and will likely have an adverse effect on their property values.

Detriments to the Community

 Based upon the projected air emissions, the enormous size and operation of this Facility, and available information such as the EPA National Emissions Inventory Data Retrieval Tool, the residents of the neighboring communities will likely be adversely affected. To generate such an extraordinary amount of power, vast amounts of natural gas will be combusted onsite to power a massive set of generators and turbines, which are intended to run 24/7. This facility is designed to be one of the largest data centers in the U.S. The projected air emissions alone will likely be detrimental to health and quality of life. Odors are likely to accompany these emissions.

Additionally, the noise of the 24/7 operation of so many generators and turbines would be expected to affect quality of life for the neighbors as well. DES recognizes that it does not regulate noise. Spartanburg County does have a noise ordinance, but it was not designed to regulate a massive industrial project such as this and is unlikely to provide benefit to the facility’s neighbors.

DES Anticipated Action on the Pending Permit Modification

 DES has stated consistently that it believes that Northmark/Valara “meets the technical requirements” for its requested Synthetic Minor Permit. Based on extensive history of DES (formerly known as DHEC), this Department historically has taken the position that if the submitted documentation provides the information required by the Regulations, that it must issue the requested Permit. (This long-standing view by DES has been the subject of much controversy for many years, and is not in accord with most environmental agencies of other states, and is not a valid approach in the opinion of the undersigned.) Historically, DES refuses to deny environmental permits on the basis of concerns that the emissions, discharges or operations of the permit applicant will result in detriment to health or quality of life, as long as the submitted permit documentation provides the information required by the regulations. DES will often respond that, in the event that the permit applicant exceeds the projected emission levels when it operates, that that is a matter for enforcement. Yet DES does little monitoring itself, and its enforcement is weak and slow to occur, particularly compared to other states. When DES enforcement does take place, it is most often insufficient to promote sufficient incentive for improvement, as its penalties, on the occasions applied, are typically too weak to even account for the facility’s monetary savings from its non-compliance. Further, the State of S.C.  has not funded DES sufficiently for it to fully carry out its duties of oversight and regulation.

(Also, I must add that I have found many highly competent and well-motivated individual staff members of DES. However, in the opinion of the undersigned, the Department overall acts as requested by State elected officials, which most often reflects corporate interests over other concerns, such as public health.)

Regarding DES Activity on the Permit:

(To Any Person Who Believes He/She May Be Adversely Affected by This Permit Request)

  • Send written comments to DES, even if you spoke at the Public Hearing.
  • Send to DES your name, address and contact information, and state that you are an affected person and you wish to be notified of any permit decision. (This is extremely important, as DES sends permit decisions only to the applicant, permittee, licensee and “affected persons who ask to be notified.” (S.C. Code Section 44-1-6-(E))

Note Should one wish to appeal (request review) of an adverse decision:

The appeal period (request for review) for a DES permit decision is only 15 days!  A request for review must be filed with the DES Board within 15 calendar days after the Department’s mailing of the decision; otherwise, the permit decision is final.

Regarding Spartanburg County Government Activity:

While the primary involvement of Spartanburg County government has already taken place, when it approved Northmark’s initial permit request in early 2025, there is also a pending request by Northmark for a “minor” Land Development Permit for their project. The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) has just filed a lawsuit in the SC Court of Common Pleas, asking the Court to declare this to be a “major” source rather than “minor.” SELC is an excellent law group with an established record of competence in cases protecting the environment. Properly characterizing this project as “major” is important, as it meets that definition, and which would require more scrutiny, as is appropriate.

Recommendation:

A number of people have asked me what can legally be done to oppose this project. If you are opposed, I would recommend that you contact all Spartanburg County Council Members, including those who recently won primary elections, and ask them to make sure the County properly characterizes this project as “major,” and also request them to disapprove further development of this project. Contacts to elected officials can be made by phone, U.S. Mail, email, in person, etc. Also contact the State House of Representatives members and State Senators for Spartanburg County and ask them to do the same.