A data center project has been rejected by The University of Delaware after local protests that the proposed facility’s economic benefits would not compensate for its environmental toll on the community.

The data center and its accompanying 279-megawatt power plant were the subject of a year long debate in Newark, Delaware. Though the complex was to occupy a site with a history of industrial use (it was formerly home to a local Chrysler plant) it was decided that this latest addition to the University’s Science Technology and Advanced Research Campus would be detrimental to the local community.

An internal working group studied feasibility for several months before unanimously recommending that university leaders reject approval for the data center and power plant.

"We have carefully examined The Data Centers' (TDC’s) plans, and have determined that they are not a good fit for the STAR Campus," University of Deleware president Patrick T Harker told Delaware Online.

The main question raised by the seven-member working group of faculty and administrators was over the efficiency of the set up. Critics said the sheer scale of the power plant raised doubts about The Data Center LLC's claims of energy efficiency. It said the planned installation was "not consistent with a high-quality development and first-class science and technology campus," according to an executive summary of the group's report.

Gene Kern, CEO of Pennsylvania-based TDC, disputed the grounds on which the university has terminated its ground lease. "We are evaluating our options," said Kern. "TDC remains committed to developing a first class data center within the state of Delaware."

Some encouraging news emerged from the report from the working group to the University of Delaware.

“A center per se could be advantageous to the Star campus with the potential to provide research and internship opportunities,” said the report in its Key Findings.

However, the report also noted that, “Numerous requests were made to TDC regarding various physical technical and environmental aspects of the proposed facility. In most respects, the information provided was scant.”