Archived page snapshot: October 3, 2026. Check current notices and source dates before acting on deadlines.
Take action
Meet the developer and have your say
Ask questions at the developer’s open house, or submit comments through the county and federal processes. Each opportunity has a different purpose.
Examples are proposed requests; check official notices before attending or filing.
Developer-hosted
Community open house
Meet the developer. Bring your questions.
October 5, 20265:30–7 p.m. · Wheatland local time
Wheatland Agriplex Building
59 Antelope Road, Wheatland, Wyoming
Site Layer 4, LLC has announced an informal introductory session about its proposed co-located energy and digital infrastructure project. Residents are invited to meet the developer, ask questions and share comments.
This is a developer-hosted meeting. It is separate from the county hearing and federal filing deadline below. Sharing comments here does not replace submitting comments through those official processes.
Announcement checked September 24, 2026. Times are shown as local to the Wheatland venue; the announcement does not specify a timezone. Check the source for updates before attending.
County
Public hearing
October 7, 20261 p.m. MDT
The October 7 special-meeting agenda and current hearing notice agree on October 7, 2026, at 1 p.m. MDT. Read the special-meeting agenda. Checked October 3.
Countywide land-use rules
County commissioners will hear comments on proposed data-center rules in Chapters 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8, then may consider adoption.
This is not a Site Layer 4 permit hearing.
- Attend: Commissioner Room, County Courthouse, 800 9th Street, Wheatland.
- Write: Email planner@plattecountywyoming.com or deliver comments to the courthouse Planning Office.
- Timing: Send written comments early if possible.
Federal / FERC
Published deadline passed
September 30, 20263 p.m. MDT / 5 p.m. EDT
The published comment deadline has passed. Follow the docket for later orders or new participation opportunities; the deadline was not a promised decision date.
Tri-State’s agreement-filing changes
Question before FERC
Whether Tri-State’s revised tariff satisfies an order to file certain large-load agreements for federal review.
Why residents may care
The stakes are who pays if a large customer’s project falls through. Requiring agreements with different Basin Electric terms to be filed lets FERC review the financial backing meant to protect other cooperative members from those costs.
Who may want to follow
Cooperative members and residents following large-load costs and agreement terms.
What it does not decide
Site Layer 4 permits, local operating rules or county funding. This is not a new vote on the whole tariff; the project’s actual utility agreements remain unverified.
Technical scope and source records
The September 9 compliance filing concerns revised §§3.6 and 5.3.1: filing non-conforming agreements when Basin Electric imposes different terms. Relevant comments address whether those revisions satisfy paragraphs 80–82 of FERC’s August 14 order. September 30 was a filing deadline, not a promised decision date.
August 14 order ↗ (opens in a new tab)
September 9 compliance package ↗ (opens in a new tab)
Tariff background and evidence limits →
- Docket: ER26-1929-002.
- Follow: Check FERC eLibrary for subsequent docket entries. A passed deadline does not establish an outcome.
What to actually say
For county-rule comments, copy one or two sentences below and adapt them to your own concern. Add a relevant rule, record or personal experience if helpful. The federal September 30 comment window is now historical; see the docket guidance below.
- Independent review and baseline measurementsI ask the county to select and direct qualified independent experts, with lawful developer funding committed before review, and require baseline measurements before construction, pumping or operation changes existing conditions.County control should cover methods, sampling locations, raw data and public findings. Funding and authority remain to be established; this is a proposed safeguard.Copy sentence
- Water I ask that the county’s data-center rules require a defined water budget and developer-funded independent baseline testing of nearby wells before pumping begins. Related requests: ongoing well monitoring and lawful, funded mitigation. The applicant’s differing water estimates remain unreconciled. Copy sentence
- Enforcement I ask that the county’s data-center rules identify who will inspect projects, how often inspections will occur, what results will be public, and what lawful remedies apply when rules are broken. Copy sentence
- Decommissioning I ask that the county’s data-center rules require financial security that can be used to pay for removal and site restoration if a project closes or is abandoned. Zoning reversion is not a cleanup fund. Copy sentence
- Who pays / public costs I ask that the county’s data-center rules require lawful, binding agreements identifying the developer’s share of added road, emergency service and independent review costs. Independent-review escrow authority remains unverified. Copy sentence
- Operating standards I ask that the county’s data-center rules set measurable noise and lighting limits, appropriate distances from neighboring properties, and a clear process for checking compliance. Copy sentence
- State oversight I ask the county to explain which state reviews apply to a data-center project, what protections those reviews provide, and how the county can lawfully address any gaps. Copy sentence
County timing. No separate written-comment cutoff is stated. Sending comments early is practical advice, not an official deadline. The hearing notice does not guarantee a vote that day.
Proposed requests. The examples are not adopted requirements; some build on existing rules or meeting discussion, and others are new requests. County authority must be established for each proposed condition.
Keep a copy. Retain written comments and seek receipt confirmation if needed; acknowledgment or permanent retention is not promised here.
Asking for safeguards and answers does not require a position on whether the project should proceed. Sources and verification history →
01 · County
County land-use rules
Comment on proposed countywide land-use standards.
Public hearing
October 7, 2026
1 p.m. MDT
Where to go
Commissioner Room
County Courthouse
800 9th Street, Wheatland
The Board of County Commissioners will hear comments on proposed county land-use rule changes. This is not an advertised Site Layer 4 SUP hearing.
↗ Attend the hearing
The October 7 special-meeting agenda and current notice agree on October 7 at 1 p.m. MDT. The notice lists the Commissioner Room at the County Courthouse, 800 9th Street, Wheatland. Commissioners may consider adoption after the hearing. Checked October 3.
The county gives the local time; MDT identifies the applicable local timezone. Recheck the official notice before attending.
Read the official hearing notice ↗ (opens in a new tab)
Do I need to sign up, and is there a time limit?
The notice does not specify a speaker sign-up process or speaking time limit. The county’s general meeting guidance ↗ (opens in a new tab) asks prospective speakers to contact the County Clerk at (307) 322-2315. Call ahead to ask how this hearing will handle public comments, and arrive a few minutes early.
Can I attend or comment remotely?
The county says most commissioner meetings are streamed on its YouTube channel ↗ (opens in a new tab). The October 7 agenda also lists YouTube viewing. Neither that listing nor the hearing notice establishes a way to speak remotely. You can comment without attending by emailing the Planning Office; ask the Clerk about remote speaking.
General speaking guidance checked September 23, 2026; agenda viewing information updated October 3. Earlier guidance was checked against the notice, commissioners’ page and county’s Watch Meetings Online listing ↗ (opens in a new tab).
✉ Send written comments
Email the Planning Office, or deliver comments to the Planning Office in the courthouse.
planner@plattecountywyoming.com
What should I put in the subject line?
Use a clear subject naming the proposed rules. The email link above fills in this suggested wording; the notice does not require a particular subject.
Public comment: October 7 proposed data-center land-use rule amendments
Timing and recordkeeping notes
Keep a copy and seek receipt confirmation if needed. County notice (C6) ↗ (opens in a new tab)
What should I write?
Start with a copyable sentence for the issue you care about, then add your own concern or experience.
Read the proposed amendments ↗ (opens in a new tab). Identify the chapter or section and distinguish a requested countywide standard from a future project-specific condition.
- Identify the rule or issue. Name the proposal, chapter or section you are commenting on.
- Explain your concern. Say what concerns you and why.
- State the change you want. Make the requested change clear.
Longer example: expansion and enforcement
Example wording to adapt.
I ask the county to retain proposed rules requiring a new review before a data-center project expands beyond the server capacity, electricity demand or cooling facilities approved in its permit.I also ask for separate review of related power generation and storage.I ask for lawful, binding project requirements that set operating limits, fund public services, and make inspection and public reporting duties clear.
Suggested safeguards to mention
Use the seven copyable comments under What to actually say, then follow P1–P8 for specific proposed safeguards. (C4 ↗ (opens in a new tab); COUNTY-008–009,021,023,033; WATER-001–015)
Earlier comment periods
Earlier county windows: The August rezoning and September 16 P&Z comment windows are historical. The September 16 outcome is a recommendation advancing to commissioners. Use the current commissioner notice; do not reuse the earlier September 10 written-comment cutoff. No later Site Layer 4 SUP hearing date is established in the reviewed records. [COUNTY-013–015; county participation-source limits]
02 · Federal
Federal utility filing
The published September 30 comment deadline has passed. Follow the docket for later action.
Published deadline passed
September 30, 2026
3 p.m. MDT / 5 p.m. EDT
Docket number
ER26-1929-002
This was a filing deadline, not a promised FERC decision date. The October 3 bounded docket check is described in the verification history below; no decision is inferred. Check the live docket for subsequent action. Published deadline ↗ (opens in a new tab)
What does this proceeding cover?
FERC is reviewing whether Tri-State’s revised tariff satisfies its agreement-filing order. This concerns review of differing utility terms, not a Site Layer 4 permit or a new vote on the whole tariff. Read the plain-English explanation and technical scope above. The preserved steps below describe the earlier comment process and do not establish that a new filing is timely. (E1 ↗ (opens in a new tab), E2 ↗ (opens in a new tab), E3 ↗ (opens in a new tab), E4 ↗ (opens in a new tab); ENERGY-003,007)
Follow ER26-1929 in FERC eLibrary
Historical September 30 filing instructions and examples
Archived guidance: the published deadline has passed. Consult subsequent docket notices or FERC’s participation office about any available next step.
How do I participate?
Use FERC’s eFiling system. Don’t use FERC’s Quick Comment (eComment) form; it does not accept this ER docket.
Open FERC Online — eFiling ↗ (opens in a new tab)
Read FERC’s official eFiling instructions ↗ (opens in a new tab). A comment or protest does not make you a party; intervention is a separate filing.
- Register and validate your accountComplete full registration at FERC Online ↗ (opens in a new tab), then use the confirmation email to validate your account. Allow time for account activation. If you already have an account, check that you can sign in now. Once signed in, select eFiling.
- Prepare your commentPrepare a signed comment identifying ER26-1929-002 and the September 9 compliance filing (accession 20260909-5123).
- Choose the filing type and docketSelect General → Comment (on Filing, Environ. Report, or Tech Conf) and choose the exact subdocket: ER26-1929-002.
- Upload, review and submitUpload the public document, identify the filing party and signer/contact, review the summary, and submit.
- Keep your confirmationRetain confirmation and check the acceptance/rejection notice and docket entry. A saved draft is not a completed filing.
What could I say?
Keep the comment focused on this compliance filing and the change you are requesting—not a new vote on the whole tariff or county land-use approval.
Plain-language example
For an electronic filing, your typed name can serve as your signature. FERC Rule 2005(c) ↗ (opens in a new tab).
Adapt this wording and replace the bracketed details before filing. Type /s/ followed by your name; that’s your electronic signature. Add your town and cooperative membership if applicable, or remove those optional details.
Re: Tri-State’s September 9, 2026 compliance filing
Docket: ER26-1929-002
Accession: 20260909-5123I am concerned about other electric cooperative members being left with costs if a large customer’s project falls through. In ER26-1929-002, I ask FERC to make sure the large-customer agreements covered by this filing must be submitted for federal review when they contain special terms, including different financial guarantees.Respectfully submitted,
/s/ [Your full name]
[Town], Wyoming · [Cooperative member, if applicable]
Date: [Month day, year]
Precise version — tariff references
This filing concerns agreements with terms required by Basin Electric that differ from Tri-State’s standard terms. The version below identifies the tariff sections and asks when the filing duty applies.
Adapt this wording and replace the bracketed details before filing. Type /s/ followed by your name; that’s your electronic signature. Add your town and cooperative membership if applicable, or remove those optional details.
Re: Tri-State’s September 9, 2026 compliance filing
Docket: ER26-1929-002
Accession: 20260909-5123Please determine whether revised §§3.6 and 5.3.1 fully implement the August order’s requirement to file non-conforming agreements containing differing Basin terms. Please identify how the filing commitment and its evaluation-based timing apply to those agreements.Respectfully submitted,
/s/ [Your full name]
[Town], Wyoming · [Cooperative member, if applicable]
Date: [Month day, year]
Paper filing instructions
Paper alternative: Address filings to the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. USPS mail goes to 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivery and other carriers go to 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852. Allow for receipt and processing; do not rely on the postmark. Consult current copy and service requirements for the document being filed. FERC delivery guidance ↗ (opens in a new tab); Rule 2001 ↗ (opens in a new tab)
Party status and intervention
A comment or protest does not make you a party. Intervention is a separate filing with interest, timing, and service requirements; late intervention is not assured. A protest must be served on the person against whom it is directed. Intervenors also have service obligations. Follow the intervention guidance ↗ (opens in a new tab) and applicable Rules 211, 214 and 2010 ↗ (opens in a new tab). Do not assume this compliance notice reopens every issue decided in August.
Need help with the federal process?
Help: FERC’s Office of Public Participation: 202-502-6595, OPP@ferc.gov. These are assistance contacts; an ordinary email is not a docket filing. (E5 ↗ (opens in a new tab), E6 ↗ (opens in a new tab))
State and future project proceedings
No Site Layer 4 state hearing/comment deadline or future SUP hearing date is established in this review. Follow actual notices once a proceeding is identified. See State oversight for the unresolved route and Project notes for the records needed. Do not treat a records-request follow-up date as a public-comment deadline.
Sources and verification history
October 3, 2026 — October 7 hearing corroborated
The October 7 special-meeting agenda and current county hearing notice, checked October 3, agree on October 7, 2026, at 1 p.m. MDT, in the Commissioner Room, County Courthouse, 800 9th Street, Wheatland. The agenda covers proposed data-center regulations in Chapters 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 and lists consideration of adoption after the hearing. This is a countywide rule hearing, not a Site Layer 4 permit hearing; consideration does not establish adoption.
The notice lists written comments by email to planner@plattecountywyoming.com or delivery to the courthouse Planning Office, with no separate written-comment cutoff. The agenda lists YouTube viewing, which does not establish remote speaking. The agenda’s posting date is not established. Earlier October 7 / October 20 observations below are historical and are superseded for current attendance guidance by this corroborated check.
October 3, 2026 — federal deadline now historical
The published September 30, 2026, 3 p.m. MDT / 5 p.m. EDT comment deadline has passed. The monitor’s October 3, 7:36 a.m. MDT search covered ER26-1929 across all subdockets, filed September 28–October 3 inclusive, with both issuance and submittal records. It returned the previously identified September 28 comment, accession 20260928-5038, and no additional records within those boundaries. This does not establish a FERC decision or prove that no later record exists. Check the live docket for subsequent action and any new participation opportunity.
September 28, 2026 — historical unresolved-date finding
County hearing date needs confirmation. The notice has displayed both October 7 and October 20 at 1 p.m. MDT. Confirm with the Planning Office before attending.
The county notice retrieved September 28 displays October 7. The September 23 check below recorded October 20, and the September 24 monitoring record reported conflicting renditions. No confirmed resolution was found. This check does not establish either date as confirmed, and no Planning Office confirmation has been obtained.
The notice concerns proposed countywide land-use rules, not a Site Layer 4 permit hearing or a promised vote. It lists 1 p.m. local time; MDT is the local-time interpretation. Email and Planning Office delivery remain the listed written-comment routes, with no separate cutoff stated. This date review did not recheck the federal docket. Earlier county entries below are historical observations, not current scheduling confirmation.
September 24, 2026 — developer open-house announcement
The Platte County Record-Times reproduced an announcement signed Site Layer 4, LLC for an informal community open house on October 5, 2026, 5:30–7 p.m., at the Wheatland Agriplex Building, 59 Antelope Road. The public Facebook post was read directly. This establishes an announced developer session, not a county permit hearing, official comment deadline or project approval. This check did not reverify the county hearing date or federal docket. Event details and source ↑
September 23, 2026 — historical date-change observation
The updated county notice was recorded on September 23 as explicitly marking the date changed and listing October 20, 2026, at 1 p.m. Mountain Daylight Time, replacing October 7. The location remains the Commissioner Room, County Courthouse, 800 9th Street, Wheatland. Written comments may still be emailed to planner@plattecountywyoming.com or delivered to the courthouse Planning Office; no separate written-comment cutoff is stated.
This remains a hearing on proposed countywide land-use rules, not a Site Layer 4 permit hearing or a promised vote. The notice states 1 p.m. local time; MDT identifies the applicable timezone. This check covered the county notice and written-comment routes; it did not repeat the federal docket search. The September 21 and earlier entries below preserve what was verified at those times; neither historical date resolves the later conflict. See the October 3 update above for current attendance guidance.
September 21, 2026 — participation and status check
The county notice ↗ (opens in a new tab) still lists October 7, 2026, at 1 p.m. Mountain Daylight Time for a hearing on proposed county land-use rules at the courthouse. It permits written comments to the Planning Office or its listed email address and gives no separate written-comment cutoff. This is not a newly established project-specific permit hearing or a promised vote.
The federal notice ↗ (opens in a new tab) still lists September 30, 2026, at 5 p.m. Eastern / 3 p.m. Mountain Daylight Time for ER26-1929-002. Use FERC eFiling ↗ (opens in a new tab), not eComment, for this electric-rate docket.
A September 21 FERC eLibrary ↗ (opens in a new tab) search of ER26-1929, all subdockets, filed September 9–21 inclusive, returned only compliance filing 20260909-5123 and notice 20260909-3058. Issuance and submittal records were included, with no keyword, document-class, industry, security or party restriction. No later acceptance order or changed deadline appeared within that result. This is a bounded search, not proof that no later record exists elsewhere or will be filed afterward.
The current search inspected result metadata. The two erratum bodies were read on September 20, not reread on September 21; they concern other proceedings. Other detailed evidence retains its own review dates. Check the official notices and docket again before attending or filing.
County notice and September 20 check
Public hearing: October 7, 2026, at 1 p.m. Mountain Daylight Time, in the Commissioner Room, County Courthouse, 800 9th Street, Wheatland. The Board of County Commissioners will hear comments on proposed county land-use rule changes. This is not an advertised Site Layer 4 SUP hearing, and the notice does not guarantee a vote that day. The county gives the local time; MDT identifies the applicable local timezone. Official notice ↗ (opens in a new tab)
Notice and written routes checked September 20, 2026. Recheck the official notice before attending or submitting.
Federal notice, errata and September 20 check
Docket ER26-1929-002 • filing accession 20260909-5123. The published notice gives September 30, 2026, at 5 p.m. EDT / 3 p.m. MDT as the comment deadline. The September 21 bounded docket search found no changed Tri-State deadline; check for subsequent entries before filing. Both identified erratum bodies were read: they extend deadlines in EL26-105-000 (Agilitas) and EL26-106-000 (RWE), not this Tri-State proceeding. September 30 is a filing deadline, not a promised FERC decision date. Federal notice, printed p. 58110 ↗ (opens in a new tab); Agilitas erratum ↗ (opens in a new tab); RWE erratum ↗ (opens in a new tab)
September 20 verification: the notice was reread and both erratum bodies inspected, not only metadata. The ER26-1929 search covered all subdockets, filed September 9–20, issuance and submittal, with no keyword, class, industry, security or party restriction; it returned only filing 20260909-5123 and notice 20260909-3058. No later acceptance order appeared; acceptance remains unverified. The eFiling route was checked September 20. FERC eLibrary ↗ (opens in a new tab) is for finding records, not submitting comments.