A 99 MW AI Data Center Is Under Review in Inyokern — and Facing Organized Local Opposition

R&L Capital, Inc. has filed for a Small Power Plant Exemption with the California Energy Commission to build a 99-megawatt, AI-ready data center on roughly 50 acres of industrial land in Inyokern, an unincorporated corner of Kern County. The nearby City of Ridgecrest — which has no permitting authority over the site — has already put the project on a recurring council agenda. For site selectors and developers, the filing shows how a mid-sized California data center is being permitted, and the obstacles standing in its way.

The Project, in Detail

The RB Inyokern Data Center is proposed near the intersection of U.S. Highway 395 and State Route 178, on industrially zoned parcels between US 395 and North Brown Road. What’s on the public record:

• 99 MW total, with a Phase 1 offering of roughly 60 MW (Proposed).
• A single-story building of about 238,000 sq ft, up to 30 feet tall, with six data halls, on roughly 50 acres (Kern County parcels 084-010-43, -44, and portions of -45 and -48).
• A mix of liquid and air cooling; primary power via an on-site substation, supplemented by solar canopies over parking.
• Forty diesel generator sets at 3 MW each for backup, with fuel storage sized for 72 hours at full load.

On the developer’s timeline, construction could begin as early as April 2027, targeting a November 2028 launch (Speculative — developer projection).

How the Project Is Being Permitted

The permitting route is worth understanding in detail. R&L Capital filed a Small Power Plant Exemption (SPPE) with the California Energy Commission — docket 26-SPPE-01, currently “Under Review.” An SPPE applies to thermal generation between 50 and 100 MW; here, the forty backup generators are the “power plant” that triggers CEC jurisdiction, and the project is sized at 99 MW to stay under the 100 MW line that would require a full Application for Certification.

An SPPE is not a shortcut, however. The review still proceeds under CEQA, comparable exemptions can take two years or more, and a granted exemption still leaves the land-use decision with Kern County as CEQA lead agency. The exemption changes the review track, not the level of scrutiny.

That structure is central to the opposition’s legal argument. Reporting and investor materials describe the build in two roughly 99 MW phases; opponents contend that permitting them separately is an attempt to avoid reviewing a single, roughly 198 MW project. The question at issue is CEQA’s “independent utility” test: if Phase 2 could not function without Phase 1’s infrastructure, regulators can treat the two as one project for environmental review. Describing the halves as sequential “phases” works against an independent-utility argument, and the segmentation question is likely to draw a legal challenge.

A Recurring Item on the Ridgecrest Council Agenda

Land-use authority rests with Kern County, not Ridgecrest — but that hasn’t kept the project off the city’s dais. Per the Ridgecrest City Council’s June 3, 2026 draft minutes, the council took up an item titled “Council Discussion Regarding The RB Inyokern Data Center With Potential Direction To Staff,” brought by Council Member John “Skip” Gorman (Confirmed — public record). Roughly 30 people spoke — the large majority opposed, with building-trades union representatives in favor — and the council placed the item on a recurring schedule, with a note reading “Data center 7/15 and then every other after.”

For a site selector, this is worth noting: even without direct jurisdiction, a neighboring city is engaging politically — taking public comment, directing staff, and committing to revisit the project every other meeting. Sustained engagement like this can affect conditions of approval, comment letters to the CEC, and the project’s timeline.

Why It Matters for Site Selectors and Developers

For firms evaluating East Kern County, four features make the site attractive: low-cost industrial land, local political and labor support, a power setup that limits grid dependence, and an economic-development case the developer has already made.

• Cheap, industrial-zoned land. Fifty acres of already-industrial land near a highway junction keeps entitlement risk low and avoids a rezoning fight.
• A pro-development coalition. Support from state and regional building trades councils and the Kern Economic Development Corporation shows institutional backing for this type of project.
• A behind-the-meter power posture. On-site solar plus 120 MW of nameplate backup reduces reliance on the transmission upgrades that delay projects elsewhere, an advantage in a state with a constrained grid.
• An economic-development case already in place. The developer projects 1,600+ construction jobs and $6M+ in annual tax revenue (Speculative — developer projection).

The Risks and Obstacles

• Water in a critically overdrafted basin. The figures diverge by orders of magnitude. Early reporting put usage at 12–16 million gallons per year (Proposed — as reported); opponents, sizing a full ~198 MW build, estimate up to 7,900 acre-feet — roughly 2.6 billion gallons — per year, or about 40% of the valley’s annual pumping (Speculative — opponents’ estimate). The Indian Wells Valley basin was designated in critical overdraft in 2022 under SGMA, so any large new draw faces added scrutiny.
• Organized opposition. A Change.org petition (started May 10, 2026 by resident Melanie Branson) has drawn 1,175+ signatures, citing water, a projected heat-island effect, generator emissions and noise, and higher utility bills. Concerns have also come from the Eastern Kern County Resource Conservation District, the City of Ridgecrest, Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, and Sierra Sands Unified School District — the China Lake presence raising airspace and compatibility questions unique to this corridor.
• Diesel-heavy backup. Forty 3 MW diesel generators invite air-quality scrutiny in California, and opponents point to emissions and noise from routine testing.

What to Watch

• The open CEC public-comment docket (26-SPPE-01) — the first formal channel where opposition and support are recorded on the state file.
• Ridgecrest City Council, July 15, 2026 — the next data-center discussion and the start of an every-other-meeting cadence; a formal comment letter to the CEC is the likely vehicle for the city’s position (cadence Confirmed per June 3 minutes; letter anticipated).
• The CEC’s disposition of the SPPE — whether it finds no significant impact, and how it treats the two-phase “independent utility” question.
• Kern County action as CEQA lead agency, and how the water question resolves with the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority.

The Obedio Angle

Projects like RB Inyokern appear in state dockets and city agendas months before they reach mainstream or trade coverage. The SPPE filing, the parcel numbers, and the project’s standing place on a neighboring city’s council calendar are all in the public record now, but spread across the CEC docket system and separate Ridgecrest and Kern County agendas. Firms that track that activity can identify sites like this well before the news reaches wider circulation.