Historical reference. This page was published before the May 6, 2026 Board of Supervisors vote on the Military Compatibility Permit. The Board approved the permit 4-1 on May 6, 2026, subject to conditions a–p. For the May 6 analysis and what comes next, see the May 6 update on the homepage.
The Vote
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors considered the Military Compatibility Permit for Project Baccara at its formal meeting at 205 W Jefferson Street, Phoenix.
Outcome: Approved 4-1, subject to conditions a–p. Motion by Supervisor Lesko (D4), seconded by Supervisor Stewart. Lone dissent: Supervisor Gallardo.
This was the Board's vote on the Military Compatibility Permit. The Arizona Corporation Commission had approved the environmental certificate 5-0 in February 2026. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 8-0 on April 9, 2026. The five-member Board of Supervisors makes county land use decisions; its members are elected by district and directly accountable to voters.
This Board unanimously denied the $3.2 billion BNSF logistics project near Surprise in November 2025, demonstrating it can and does deny projects when the facts warrant.
Key Distinction: The ACC Vote Does Not Decide This One
The ACC granted a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility under Title 40. The Board of Supervisors is voting on a county land use determination under Title 11. These are different statutes with different questions. The ACC vote does not relieve the Board of its independent duty to evaluate military compatibility.
Five Findings
Each of the findings below is documented in a permit file, a government letter, a peer-reviewed study, or the developer's own press release. Each links to a full analysis on this site.
On March 13, 2026, the Commander of the 56th Fighter Wing sent a letter to Maricopa County finding Project Baccara "not compatible" with base operations unless nine sets of conditions are met. The letter was entered into the P&Z hearing record.
Download the letter (3 pages) →The draft permit caps NOx emissions at 89.9 tons per year, 10.1 tons below the 100-ton major source threshold. Propane use above roughly 20 percent of operations, allowed under the permit, pushes total NOx above the trigger.
Read the permit analysis →The developer-commissioned noise study models only continuous full-load operation, not startup or shutdown events. The air permit authorizes 3,600 startup and shutdown events per year at any hour. Every methodological choice in the study moves the result in the same direction: quieter.
Read the noise analysis →No thermal impact study exists. Each turbine exhausts at 850 degrees Fahrenheit continuously. APS's own rate filing says data center load growth is driving residential rate increases. Takanock told media the project will lower bills.
Read the heat and bills analysis →Takanock's press release describes the turbines as "prime power until" a future substation, then a "wholesale grid resource." The ACC approved the project on the basis it would not burden ratepayers. The published plan describes a different outcome.
Read the business model analysis →What This Brief Reflected, And What's Next
This brief was prepared before the May 6 Board of Supervisors hearing. The five findings above were the analytical foundation that residents took to the public record. The Board approved the Military Compatibility Permit 4-1 subject to conditions a–p. Conditions (g) and (h) incorporate the Luke AFB letter and require a Military Compatibility Compliance Report at the Plan of Development stage. The compliance demonstration occurs after the permit, not before.
The five findings did not become less relevant on May 6. The Luke AFB conditional standard now governs the Plan of Development review. The NOx margin under the major source threshold sits with the MCAQD permit and EPA Region 9 review. The noise study methodology and the heat and water questions remain on the public record. The business model question of prime power until a future substation is the question the next utility-handoff filings will have to answer.
Where the analysis goes from here
The remaining gates — the MCAQD air quality permit, EPA Region 9 review, the Plan of Development before the Board of Supervisors, and Glendale annexation — each operate under separate statutory authority and run their own decision processes. None of them are bound by the May 6 outcome. The findings below remain the substantive starting point for engagement at each.
For current action steps and the May 6 analysis, see the May 6 update and the action steps on the homepage. For the longer briefing with the basics, the research findings in full, and deeper sourcing, see What You Need to Know About Project Baccara. For the full fact-check of the developer's claims, see In Their Own Words.