Eco TIP West has won a court fight with Chatham County over a proposed data center near Moncure. The company describes an approximately 750-megawatt project that would include cryptocurrency mining. The ruling establishes a legal win. Its project description remains a developer’s proposal.
For nearby residents, the question is what could actually get built. The documents reviewed do not establish an approved building footprint, a confirmed operator or a construction schedule. The developer’s own request to the court included processing its site plan and subsequent required development permits.
What Eco TIP proposes
The company’s April complaint places the project near Pea Ridge Road and Old US 1 in the Moncure area. Its 750-megawatt figure describes proposed capacity, not measured electricity consumption at an operating facility. The complaint includes cryptocurrency mining among the intended uses; it does not identify an exclusively AI project.
On timing, Eco TIP says Duke Energy confirmed power availability between 2028 and 2030 following a large-load study. That is the company’s assertion in litigation. We have not verified a current, binding utility-delivery commitment. The stated power window should not be read as an opening date.
What the court decided
The order, signed September 17 and filed September 18, grants Eco TIP summary judgment on liability and entitlement to attorney’s fees. The fee amount is not specified. Damages are reserved for further proceedings.
The order describes Eco TIP’s challenges to the county’s February moratorium, including arguments about exemption and development rights. It does not identify which legal theory decided the case. It contains no construction permit or list of waived approvals. Current appeal and stay status remain unverified.
The permit dispute was substantive. In its August opposition, the county argued that its earlier zoning letter confirmed a permitted use without authorizing construction, and that the application was incomplete. Eco TIP disputed that account and asked for permit processing. The court ruled for the company, but its short order does not explain the treatment of each argument.
What residents still need to know
The reviewed filings leave practical questions unresolved: the accepted site plan, actual building area, computing tenants, cooling design, water demand and remaining approvals. We have not verified those specifications or a financed construction timetable. A current site plan, the county’s post-ruling permit decisions and binding utility terms would show how much of this proposal is ready to become a project.