Lyon County commissioners voted 3-1 Thursday to approve a zoning change for the proposed Monarch Data Center near Yerington, advancing a project that would bring a 4.6 million-square-foot, 1,000-megawatt campus to roughly 505 acres in Mason Valley.

The vote moves the project forward, but it does not authorize construction. Copia Power still must return with a final design for board approval, secure separate state approvals including from the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection and the State Engineer, and complete its purchase of the land. Copia did not respond to a request for comment.

Commissioner Dave Hockaday cast the lone dissenting vote. Commissioner John Cassinelli abstained, citing a potential conflict related to his role with an economic development authority.

Project details and board concerns

Copia has proposed a campus that would also include a 500-megawatt natural gas backup plant and a battery energy storage system.

The zoning decision follows earlier county action on the site. In December, the board changed the land-use designation from "agriculture" to "specific plan", a step needed before seeking the zone change. The board had previously tabled that issue in August 2025 over concerns about the project's primary access road. In early July, the Lyon County Planning Commission recommended changing the zoning from rural residential to a planned unit development.

During board discussion, Hockaday questioned the way county staff findings were framed in development documents.

"I don't see any positives in the other ones", he said.

He said many of the findings appeared positive on paper even though, in his reading, they weighed against the project, including whether the design adequately serves public services, traffic and community enjoyment.

Commissioner Robert Jacobson raised questions about water use, pointing to a difference between Copia's application materials and the staff report. The application estimates total water consumption across all uses at under 100 acre-feet per year, while the staff report cites under 800 acre-feet per year and describes that as a 60 percent reduction from current agricultural use on the site. Both documents describe the same air-cooled, closed-loop system.

Cullen McGinnis, volunteer engagement coordinator for the Sierra Club's Toiyabe Chapter, said during public comment that Copia had not clearly explained when its cooling system would move toward more water-intensive operation and had not identified a temperature threshold for doing so. The staff report describes the system as not being "entirely" air-cooled, without further detail.

Power supply was another point of debate. Hockaday asked how NV Energy could provide the full 1,000 megawatts requested for Monarch when, he said, other companies in the region have reportedly been told they cannot get service until 2032.

A Copia representative pointed to NV Energy's integrated resource plan filed in April and said the utility commits to supplying 2,550 megawatts to data centers over the next several years. Until Monarch receives grid capacity, the company said it would self-supply through its gas plant and battery storage while phasing in the campus as grid integration occurs.

Chair Scott Keller asked whether the gas plant, first described as backup power only, would operate continuously after connection to the grid. Copia said it could run 24/7, though it usually would not.

Public opposition and support

Dozens of residents spoke against the project at the meeting, continuing opposition that has surfaced throughout the approval process. A smaller number of business and building-trades representatives supported the proposal, citing jobs and tax revenue.

Opposition focused heavily on tribal consultation and the location of the site. According to the Sierra Club's Toiyabe Chapter, the Walker River Paiute and Yerington Paiute tribes have passed formal resolutions opposing the project. The chapter said afterward that it believes Monarch may be the first data center proposed in Nevada to rely primarily on groundwater in an already over-appropriated basin.

In a statement, the chapter said it would "pursue every available legal avenue" to challenge the project going forward.

Other residents cited concerns including waste heat from the buildings, seismic and soil-liquefaction risk, construction traffic, and possible health effects from noise and air emissions. Several speakers said inconsistencies in Copia's presentation had weakened public confidence in the proposal.

Supporters included Eloy Jara, business manager for Laborers' Local 169, who said the project would create substantial construction work. Kris Thompson, a former project manager at the Tahoe Reno Industrial Center in Storey County, told commissioners that comparable data center campuses there generated millions of dollars a year in property tax revenue even after abatements.

County takes a different track on data centers

The Monarch vote comes as other Nevada jurisdictions reconsider data center growth. Reno, Nye County and Humboldt County have passed moratoriums on new approvals this year, while Clark County, Churchill County and the cities of Sparks and Fernley are considering code changes. Lyon County, by contrast, continued processing Monarch while separately developing its own countywide rules for the industry.

Three days before Thursday's vote, Lyon County held a workshop on its first data center-specific ordinance. As drafted, the ordinance would apply to new construction, major expansions of existing data centers, and conversions of existing buildings. Local outlets have reported the ordinance would not apply to Monarch because its application was already underway, but that had not been independently confirmed with the county as of publication.

Commissioners expressed dissatisfaction with parts of the draft. At the workshop, Hockaday called the proposed 150-foot residential setback "absolutely unacceptable" and said data center setbacks should be doubled or tripled. Cassinelli also objected to the ordinance's water-cooling language, calling a "prohibited... but conditionally allowed" approach contradictory and suggesting an annual water-consumption cap instead.

NV Energy Vice President Jeff Brigger told commissioners at the workshop that the utility has requests for roughly 22,000 megawatts of new demand statewide, most of it from data centers, compared with a 2025 peak demand of about 8,500 megawatts. He said a proposed cost-allocation framework would place infrastructure costs on large customers rather than existing ratepayers.

The board voted unanimously at that workshop to send the draft back to staff for revisions, including larger residential setbacks, changes to water and cooling provisions, and clearer direction on the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection's role in air quality permitting. No date has been set for the revised draft to return.

Read the source