Glendale Annexes Project Eagle/Baccara, 6-1: Three Data Centers, 18 Gas Turbines and an APS Substation Come Into the City

About 700 megawatts of gas generation, certificated by the state in February, now sits inside a city. The Glendale City Council voted 6-1 on Tuesday, October 27, to annex and rezone roughly 160 acres in the West Valley for Project Eagle, three data center buildings, and Project Baccara, the gas plant built to power them ^[1,4]. The megawatt figure is the Arizona Corporation Commission’s. The city-stage record describes turbines and acres instead.

This is a land-use decision by a city council. The commission settled the power plant’s siting certificate in February, and the air permit belongs to a third agency. What Glendale decided is whose rules the campus is built under.

What the council approved

Mayor Jerry Weiers and council members Lupe Conchas, Dianna Guzman, Ray Malnar, Lauren Tolmachoff and Bart Turner voted for the annexation and an associated zoning change; Council member Leandro Baldenegro voted no, the Mesa Independent reported ^[1]. Neither Baldenegro nor Weiers explained his vote ^[1]. The Phoenix Business Journal has described the zoning change as a move from heavy industrial to planned area development, according to Bisnow ^[7].

The site plan as reported ^[1]:

• Project Eagle: three data centers of 330,000 square feet each, on about 108 acres.
• Project Baccara: a natural gas plant with 18 turbines, on 33 acres.
• APS substation: about 12 acres, which the developers say will take about five years to build out.

The council got here in steps. On April 28 it adopted Resolution R26-42, directing the city to enter a pre-annexation development agreement with Baccara Eagle Land, LLC “to facilitate the annexation and development of properties within unincorporated Maricopa County and within the City’s municipal planning area” ^[6]. FOX 10 reported that April vote was unanimous ^[3]. The Glendale Planning Commission recommended the rezoning 4-2 on September 24 ^[7]. FOX 10 names the developers as Takanock and Montera Infrastructure ^[3]; Bisnow describes Takanock as Michigan-based ^[7].

The ordinance also carries conditions. KJZZ reported that it requires the developer to meet standards sent by Luke Air Force Base, including mitigating emissions from the gas turbines and making sure nothing interferes with pilot visibility ^[2]. Condition No. 12, which Conchas said helped change his vote, requires the developer to help “increase, fund and streamline a fire station” in western Glendale’s 303 corridor ^[1].

The power plant already had its state certificate

The generation side of this project went through the Arizona Corporation Commission first. On February 4 the commission voted unanimously to approve a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility for Baccara Power, LLC, in Docket L-21369A-25-0222-00253 ^[4]. The commission’s summary at the time described two data center buildings and “approximately 700 MW of natural gas generators to supply power both to the data center and in support of the regional power grid,” at the northeast corner of Olive Avenue and the Bullard Avenue alignment ^[4]. The state’s Power Plant and Line Siting Committee had voted 8-1 to approve the certificate in December 2025 ^[4]. Vice Chair Rachel Walden’s statement put the plant at 700.2 megawatts, on a county island near Luke ^[5].

Chair Nick Myers drew the same jurisdictional line this column draws. He told the public the commission’s job “is not to approve or deny the data center,” only to ensure the generation and interconnection meet the statutory requirements for a certificate ^[4].

Two numbers have moved since then. The February description had two data center buildings; the October reporting has three ^[1,4,7]. No megawatt figure appears in the city-stage reporting, so whether the plant’s size changed with the building count is not something the public record here answers.

Who pays: the gas, the grid and the substation

For ratepayers, the case for this project rests on self-supply. Walden said she voted yes because “the data center will bring its own power solution so that the ratepayers in Irrigation District #7 and APS territories are not bearing any of the costs to power the facility” ^[5]. She contrasted it with her lone dissent on Tucson Electric Power’s Project Blue contract, which she said “did not go far enough” in protecting ratepayers ^[5]. The commission’s February summary was shorter: “All expenses will be paid for by the developer” ^[4].

Earlier this month the commission restated the policy behind that. In an October 9 statement it said it maintains a “growth pays for growth” principle for new high-load customers, using extra-large-load tariffs, long-term minimum capacity agreements, energy service agreements and upfront capital requirements ^[8]. The same statement said cost allocation between residential and commercial customers is being examined in APS’s pending rate case ^[8].

Here is the open piece. The plant is described as serving the regional grid as well as the campus, and the site plan reserves 12 acres for an APS substation ^[1,4]. None of the documents this column draws on says how the plant ties into APS’s system, who pays for that substation, or under what agreement. Self-supply covers the energy. The wires are a separate question, and APS’s own rate case is where the commission says those allocations get decided ^[8].

On timing, the substation is the long pole as the developers describe it: about five years to build out ^[1]. The city vote does not shorten that.

Where the sides stand

The developer’s position is that the vote changed jurisdiction more than outcome. Ed Bull, Takanock’s attorney, told the council, “We have the entitlement. That is a private property right,” and said the project would proceed without annexation under its Maricopa County approvals ^[1]. On water, Bull said EPCOR, not the city, will serve the site, and that the project would use about 25% of the water the parcel used as farmland, with four new wells, a primary and a backup for each project ^[1].

Council members who voted yes cited infrastructure and city finances. Tolmachoff said “we need the infrastructure” ^[2]. Conchas said, “I want to ensure that we don’t have to raise any taxes on our residents” ^[3]. The city estimates $150 million in revenue over the next decade, KJZZ reported ^[2]. Guzman said, “There has been a lot of misinformation that has been used to frighten people regarding this project” ^[1].

Opponents, most of them from neighboring Surprise and Waddell, outnumbered supporters 14 to 4 at the hearing, and nearly 11,000 people signed a petition against the project ^[1]. Their concerns centered on air and water. Resident David Wirth said, “The West Valley already has a low quality of air, and I have breathing problems myself” ^[2]. April Butler, who lives and works a mile from the site, said, “They don’t have Glendale residents out here. We had no voice really” ^[3]. Holly Tolmachoff asked why the project needs four new wells if the farm used more water ^[1]. Sandy Bahr of the Sierra Club said, “Just because burning gas is not as dirty as burning coal does not make it clean” ^[1]. One speaker, Tom Bacome of Surprise, backed the data centers and opposed the gas plant ^[1].

As this column noted with Lordstown’s moratorium fight, local land-use records often say little about power. Glendale’s is a partial exception: the generation is on the site plan, in turbines and acres, even if the megawatts live in a state docket.

What I’m watching

APS rate case, decision expected by year-end. The commission has said cost allocation between customer classes is being decided there, and that APS will file its annual power supply adjustor reset after the case concludes ^[8]. That docket, not Glendale’s, is where substation and large-load cost questions get answered.

The air permit. Walden listed an Arizona Department of Environmental Quality air permit among the conditions in the certificate ^[5]. With 18 turbines on the site plan and Luke’s emissions standards written into the city ordinance, that permit is the next public record on how much gas this campus burns ^[1,2].