GDELTIowa
Goldstein: 1.6Tone: -0.4
Country
United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary
People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe
Open article →GDELTColorado
Goldstein: 5.0Tone: 0.4
Moffat County names data center interests, confirms meetings with officials
Communication between Moffat County Commissioner Villard, data center firms began in April
Editor’s note: This is a developing story and more information will be posted as it becomes available.
Last update: 4:44 p.m. Aug. 7
Moffat County has identified two companies that expressed interest in potential development in the Trapper area and confirmed that their representatives met with senior county officials, providing more detail about discussions that were not mentioned during a standing-room only Aug. 5 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
In an Aug. 7 press release sent to the Craig Press by Moffat County Commissioner Melody Villard, the county identified the companies as Pure-Green and Toto and said representatives requested meetings with county officials.
The companies met with Melody Villard, chair of the Moffat County Board of County Commissioners and Natural Resources Director Jeff Comstock, according to the county.
The release also states that separate conversations occurred with Planning and Zoning Director Candace Miller.
The disclosure adds a new layer to questions surrounding statements made at Wednesday’s Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, where residents repeatedly asked why the county was undertaking a data center-specific regulatory review and whether a particular project was driving the process.
Miller told the public there were no proposed projects, applications or speculative projects before the Planning Department. She said she initiated the review after observing data center development elsewhere in the country and described the effort as preparation in case the issue “were to come our way.”
The county now says expressions of interest had already come its way when Miller made her statements during the Aug. 5 meeting.
At the same time, Club 20 Executive Director Wade Haerle has withdrawn earlier statements suggesting that Moffat County was operating under nondisclosure agreements or had received letters or notices of intent from prospective data center developers.
Haerle told the Craig Daily Press on Friday that he mistakenly spoke regarding Moffat County while explaining practices he had encountered while researching data center development in other areas.
“That’s 100% on me,” Haerle said. “I know I used those words, but I did not mean that Moffat County had it.”
Haerle said he has never seen a letter of intent involving Moffat County and was never told by county officials that one existed. He also said county officials never told him which companies had expressed interest in the Trapper area.
“We’ve never talked about any company that has approached them,” Haerle said. “I have never talked with anybody associated with Moffat County about any company around data centers ever.”
Haerle’s correction resolves part of the conflict that emerged after his initial interview. The county’s latest release again states that no county official has entered into a nondisclosure agreement related to the discussions.
But the correction does not resolve broader questions about what county officials knew before the Aug. 5 meeting and how that information was presented to the public.
The county now says Pure-Green’s interest resulted from the Moffat County Economic Development Council’s Trapper Industrial Park marketing initiative, which was designed to attract companies, developers and investors interested in redevelopment following the announced closures of Trapper Mine and Craig Station.
Toto also expressed interest in evaluating opportunities in the Trapper area, according to the release.
The county characterized both contacts as preliminary and exploratory. Officials said no land-use application, zoning application, building permit application or formal development proposal has been submitted and no county approvals have been requested or granted.
While nothing disclosed by the county establishes that either company will pursue a project, the amount of information available about activity preceding the public zoning discussion on Aug. 5 has vastly increased.
The county’s first clarification acknowledged that two unnamed entities had contacted Moffat County. The latest release identifies them and confirms that representatives met with the commission chairman and Comstock while also holding separate conversations with Miller.
The county further revealed that letters concerning Pure-Green and Toto appeared in the Board of County Commissioners’ July 14 consent agenda materials.
According to the release, those publicly available documents reflected the county’s willingness to allow both companies to continue exploring concepts for the area.
Both letters, which bear Villard’s name and signature, do not mention data centers specifically.
Instead, the letter to Pure-Green Colorado, Inc. Chief Executive Officer and President Brian Dunn, dated April 29, 2026, states that “the project remains in its early stages and that your company has executed a Letter of Intent to acquire the existing Trapper Mine property for redevelopment as a site for geothermal energy production, advanced computing, and an industrial campus.”
The letter also identifies the county’s willingness to examine its zoning as it relates to Pure-Green’s request.
“Moffat County is served by a strong Planning Department and an experienced Planning and Zoning Board, with established procedures designed to ensure a transparent, fair, and efficient review of zoning requests and development permits,” says Villard in her letter. “For large-acreage projects such as this, the County has the ability to consider phased zoning requests that align with project growth and development timelines, rather than requiring a single rezoning action for the entire property at the outset.”
The letter continues to say “As a Tier l, Coal Impacted Community, we are open to large projects such as yours that increase property tax and jobs. As a next step, we encourage you to initiate a formal project review with the Moffat County Planning Department.”
The letter to Toto is vague and bears few specifics.
The county cites these letters in rejecting suggestions that information was intentionally withheld.
The Craig Press has contacted Pure-Green regarding the information within Villard’s letters.
“Moffat County has been transparent regarding the existence of these companies and their interest in the region,” the release states.
Public availability of the July 14 documents, however, is a separate question from whether that interest was clearly communicated to residents attending the Aug. 5 meeting.
When a resident asked Miller where the data center initiative came from, she said she had been monitoring what was happening in counties and cities across the country.
Asked directly whether beginning the review was her idea, Miller responded, “It was my idea.”
She later said the county needed regulations in place “if this comes our way.”
The county’s latest statement does not dispute those comments. Instead, it says the regulatory review was driven by state and national trends and was not initiated on behalf of a specific applicant or project.
“While expressions of interest from private parties reinforce the importance of being prepared, the ongoing regulatory review is not tied to any one company or conceptual project,” the release states.
Questions still remain regarding Miller having already spoken with representatives connected to potential development, and why that information was not provided when residents directly asked why the county was suddenly reviewing data center regulations.
The county’s release emphasizes that preliminary economic development discussions routinely occur without becoming formal projects.
Officials said they have entertained concepts ranging from greenhouses and geothermal development to solar projects, carbon sequestration, advanced nuclear energy and housing development, many of which never advance.
While that
Open article →