Facts Take Action Contact Officials Sources
Fact Check

In Their Own Words

Takanock and project supporters have made specific claims about Project Baccara. Here's what their own data and public statements actually show, with sources.

What This Article Shows

Their Emissions Data, Annotated

Takanock presented these numbers at their November 2025 open house to show emissions are "well below major source thresholds." That framing deserves a closer look.

Pollutant Baccara (tons/yr) Major Source Limit % of Threshold
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 89.9 100
90%
Particulate Matter 61.3 70
88%
Carbon Monoxide 79.8 100
80%
Volatile Organic Compounds 37.5 100
38%
Sulfur Oxides 12.4 100
12%
Hazardous Air Pollutants 7.35 25
29%

Source: Takanock LLC, Project Baccara Air Emissions slide, November 2025 open house presentation. "Major Source" thresholds are regulatory limits under the Clean Air Act (Title V / PSD) that trigger the most stringent federal permitting requirements.

What "Below Threshold" Actually Means

"Below major source thresholds" is a regulatory classification, not a health standard. It means Takanock structured their project to stay just under the line where they would face the toughest federal scrutiny. With NOx at 90% and Particulate Matter at 88% of the limits, any operational increase, modeling error, or future expansion could push them over.

This data also does not account for cumulative impact with other industrial sources along the Southwest Railplex corridor. Maricopa County already struggles with ozone and particulate matter compliance under EPA standards. These are permitted limits based on modeling, not measured emissions from an operating facility.

The World Health Organization states there is no safe threshold for PM2.5 exposure. Harm is dose-dependent. "Below threshold" does not mean "safe for your family."

Claims vs. Context

We're not here to be unfair. When a claim checks out, we say so. When it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, we explain why. Every rebuttal is sourced.

Claim "Luke Air Force Base supports the project" / "found to be compatible with Luke AFB" ▼
What they say
Takanock's project website, as reported by AZBEX in January 2026, "says the project has been found to be compatible with Luke AFB." A November 2025 letter-to-the-editor from Lisa Everett, chair of LD29 Republicans, in the Surprise Independent stated: "Both the Arizona Corporation Commission and Luke Air Force Base have indicated support for the project."
Sources: AZBEX (Jan 2026), Surprise Independent (Nov 2025)
What the record shows
On March 13, 2026, Brigadier General David J. Berkland, Commander of the 56th Fighter Wing at Luke Air Force Base, sent a three-page letter to Maricopa County Planning and Development on Project Baccara (case MCP250007). The letter is included as an exhibit in the county's Planning and Zoning Commission staff report for the April 9 hearing. It finds the project "not compatible and consistent with the high noise and accident potential associated with LAFB's operations unless the following conditions are met."

The Commander's letter classifies the project as a "utility" under A.R.S. § 28-8461, the Arizona statute that generally restricts utility siting near a military airport. It then lists nine categories of conditions that must be satisfied before the project can be considered compatible. These include electromagnetic and radio-frequency interference shielding, no steam or visible plumes affecting pilot visibility during the approximately 170 daily overflights of or near the site, no on-site natural gas storage, sound attenuation, and federal reviews by the FAA, FCC, DoD Siting Clearinghouse, and CFIUS.

The letter closes by noting that LAFB "reserves the right to provide further comment."

What the Board of Supervisors did on May 6, 2026. The Board approved the Military Compatibility Permit 4-1, subject to conditions a–p. Conditions (g) and (h) incorporate the March 13 Luke AFB letter by reference and require a Military Compatibility Compliance Report demonstrating compliance with each Luke AFB requirement. Per the text of condition (h), that report is submitted "as part of the Plan of Development application and building permits." The compliance demonstration occurs at the next gate, not at the Military Compatibility Permit gate.

What the disagreement at the hearing was about. Speaking on behalf of Baccara Eagle Land, LLC, Ed Bull told the Board the project is deemed compatible with Luke AFB and that the company's CEO had responded in writing accepting all of the stipulations in the Berkland letter, as reported by FOX 10 Phoenix. Supervisor Steve Gallardo's stated reason for dissent, as reported by KJZZ, was that Luke Air Force Base itself had not confirmed in writing that its concerns were addressed. Both observations describe the same procedural posture from different positions. The developer accepted the conditions. The Air Force has not affirmed compliance. The compliance demonstration occurs at the Plan of Development stage.

The record does not contain a Luke AFB finding that the project is compatible, or a statement that LAFB supports it. The record contains an applicant who agreed to meet conditions, and a Board approval that requires those conditions be demonstrated at a later stage.
Sources: Luke AFB letter, March 13, 2026 (3 pages) · MCP250007 Staff Report (17 pages) · Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Formal Meeting agenda Item 9 (MCP250007), May 6, 2026 · KJZZ, May 6, 2026 · FOX 10 Phoenix, May 6, 2026
Claim "Hundreds of jobs and millions in tax revenue for public schools" ▼
What they say
Takanock's factsheet says the project will bring "over a thousand construction jobs and up to 200 permanent jobs," with $41 million annually to Maricopa County schools and $7 million to the county. The Arizona Technology Council calls data centers "critical to Arizona's growing tech economy."
Sources: Project Baccara Factsheet, ABC15
What the numbers show
Data Center Dynamics, an industry trade publication, reported the permanent job count as 100, not 200. Even Takanock's own materials use "up to" language. For a 160-acre, 700 MW facility affecting thousands of nearby residents, 100 to 200 permanent jobs is a small benefit for an impact that size.

The tax revenue figure also deserves context. Arizona's Computer Data Center Program provides Transaction Privilege Tax and Use Tax exemptions at the state, county, and local levels on qualifying equipment purchases for up to 20 years. For Maricopa County projects, the minimum investment threshold is $50 million. How much of the claimed tax benefit is offset by these exemptions?

Chandler's mayor said it well when rejecting a similar project: "Big, almost-jobless buildings that are important and desired in other locations don't fit what we've been designing and crafting and looking for."
Sources: Data Center Dynamics, AZ Data Center Tax Program, KJZZ (Chandler)
Claim "Closed-loop cooling, no more than 100 acre-feet of water per year" ▼
What they say
A letter from Lisa Everett, chair of LD29 Republicans, stated Project Baccara will use "no more than 100 acre-feet of water per year, less than the annual water use of a single hotel in Surprise." Takanock says they will use cooled chillers rather than evaporative coolers.
Source: Surprise Independent
What the numbers show
100 acre-feet is still approximately 32.5 million gallons per year. The Change.org petition and earlier reporting cited approximately 59 million gallons. No government agency has independently verified either number.

It's also unclear whether the 100 acre-feet figure covers only the data center cooling or also includes the 18 natural gas turbines. These are separate systems with separate water needs.

Kirsten James, who studies data center water consumption, told ABC15: "We have to look beyond just the four walls of the data centers, with the water use associated with the electricity generation. We need to look at the full picture."

EPCOR, not Surprise, will handle water and sewer services. The City of Surprise has not independently verified any water usage claims.
Sources: ABC15, Data Center Dynamics
Claim "Strengthens the grid and lowers utility bills for residential customers" ▼
What they say
Takanock stated to ABC15: "In addition to hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars of new and needed tax revenue for public schools, our project will strengthen the reliability of the local electric grid even while lowering retail utility bills for residential customers."
Source: ABC15
What the numbers show
This is a bold claim with no supporting data provided. APS data center strategist Patrick Bogle told ABC15 that data centers currently consume 400 to 500 megawatts of load, and if every proposed project moves forward, APS would need to more than double its current service capacity.

In Chandler, residents cited rising electric bills as a primary reason for opposing a data center. The Arizona Attorney General has even challenged a separate data center deal in Tucson, arguing it bypassed rate regulation through a loophole.

APS, the utility that would serve this load, filed a rate case in June 2025 seeking a 14% residential rate increase, its fourth since 2017. Customers are already paying $12 more per month than they were a year ago. The pending increase would add another $20. Within that same filing, APS proposed raising data center rates by 45%, stating that large data centers need to pay their fair share as they grow. That is APS, in a public regulatory filing, saying data center growth is why other customers are paying more.

Takanock says the project will lower your bill. APS says data centers are why your bill is going up. Both statements are in the public record.
Sources: ABC15 (APS data), Deseret News (AG Mayes)
Claim "Noise studies show operations will not exceed current ambient levels" ▼
What they say
Lisa Everett's letter stated: "Despite online claims, the noise studies do include the gas plant, showing operations will not exceed current ambient noise levels."
Source: Surprise Independent
What the study actually shows
A 45-page operational noise study does exist. It was prepared by Meridian Consultants LLC, a firm retained by Takanock, and filed with the Military Compatibility Permit application (MCP250007) in October 2025. Its conclusion is that operational noise would not result in a significant increase above ambient levels at the nearest residential receptors, using a 3 dBA significance threshold.

That conclusion rests on a series of methodological choices. The ambient baseline was measured over a single 24-hour period in August 2025, when residential air conditioning and other seasonal noise sources run at peak output. The study models only continuous full-load operation; it does not model startup or shutdown events, which the air permit authorizes up to 3,600 times per year. Each turbine is assigned a sound power level of 85 dBA, based on manufacturer specifications; published industry documentation describes unmitigated simple-cycle turbine levels exceeding 110 dB, with auxiliary equipment reaching 155 dB. The study uses A-weighted measurements only, which do not capture low-frequency energy. It does not model exhaust plume effects that published research has shown can add up to 11 dB downwind.

Each of these choices is individually defensible. Every one of them moves the modeled result in the same direction: quieter. A study designed to assess impact rather than to satisfy a permitting requirement would include at least some choices that err toward the receptors rather than the source.

For the full methodological review, see our analysis: Eighteen Turbines: What the Noise Study Leaves Out.
Source: Meridian Consultants LLC, "Operational Noise Study, Baccara Project," September 2025. Filed as an attachment to MCP250007. Download PDF (45 pages) · Maricopa County Document Center
Claim "Air quality will be continuously monitored, ensuring compliance" ▼
What they say
Lisa Everett's letter stated: "Air quality will be continuously monitored, not checked once a year, ensuring compliance and transparency." Takanock's slide notes they will use Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR).
Source: Surprise Independent, Takanock open house presentation
Credit where it's due, and where questions remain
Continuous monitoring and BACT are genuine positives. If implemented as described, this is better than many industrial facilities. We acknowledge that.

However, monitoring documents a problem. It does not prevent one. If NOx emissions are running at 90% of the major source threshold and monitoring detects an exceedance, the damage to air quality has already occurred. The question isn't whether they'll watch the numbers. It's whether those numbers should be this close to the limit in a county that already fails to meet federal air quality standards.

And "continuous monitoring" is a requirement imposed by regulators. It's not a voluntary act of goodwill. Calling a legal requirement a community benefit is a common move.
Source: American Lung Association (Maricopa air quality)
Claim "Located on industrial land, fits with the county's growth plans" ▼
What they say
Takanock's factsheet states: "The project is located on industrial land, bordered by existing transportation and utility networks and other industrial uses. A data center in this location will fit with the County's growth plans and maximize in-fill of an existing industrial area."
Source: Project Baccara Factsheet
What the numbers show
The site is zoned IND-3. That's true. But IND-3 zoning was designed for warehouses, distribution centers, and light manufacturing. Not for a 700 MW natural gas power plant with 18 turbine stacks reaching 72 feet.

The nearest homes are approximately 500 meters (about 2,000 feet) away. The project is half a mile from Surprise city limits. Thousands of families in Marley Park, Copper Canyon Ranch, and surrounding communities chose this area for its character. The 72-foot exhaust stacks will be visible for miles.

The site is also near Luke Air Force Base, a designated EPA Superfund site with documented soil and groundwater contamination. Adding another industrial emissions source to this area raises cumulative impact questions.
Sources: Data Center Dynamics (Superfund reference), Blaze Radio
Context Who is Takanock LLC, and who is behind the project? ▼
What they present
Takanock's factsheet describes itself as "a data center site selection development company utilizing an energy-first approach." They highlight 4 active sites in three states, 1,600+ acres under control, and 2.8 GW+ capacity.
Source: Project Baccara Factsheet
Background context
Takanock is a two-year-old Michigan-based company backed by DigitalBridge, a major global investment firm. This isn't a homegrown Arizona operation. It's an institutional capital vehicle.

Their KP Environmental consultant, Sarah Justus, runs public engagement. Their environmental consultant handles the community-facing messaging while DigitalBridge provides the financial muscle. None of this is inherently wrong, but the community should understand who they're dealing with. This is Wall Street capital seeking returns, packaged as community investment.

For context: KP Environmental's Justus said at a public meeting, "I certainly do not begrudge anybody that has questions or opposition to the project." That's a reasonable statement. But questions deserve substantive answers backed by independent verification, not just developer-provided studies.
Sources: Data Center Dynamics, Blaze Radio / ASU

This Isn't a Partisan Issue

Data center opposition in Arizona spans the political spectrum. Communities across the state are saying the same thing: wrong location, wrong scale, wrong process.

Statewide pattern
Chandler (Republican suburb): City Council voted 7-0 against a $2.5 billion AI data center in December 2025. Over 250 emails opposed, 10 in favor. Former Senator Kyrsten Sinema lobbied for the project and warned of federal preemption. The council backed their constituents anyway.

Tucson (Democratic stronghold): City Council rejected the $3.6 billion Project Blue in August 2025. Attorney General Kris Mayes challenged a separate deal, alleging the developer bypassed rate regulation.

Marana (conservative-leaning): Community pushback ongoing against a related data center proposal.

We are asking the same question families in Chandler, Tucson, and Marana are asking: Does this belong next to our homes?

Sources: AZFamily, Deseret News, KJZZ

← Back to Stop Baccara: Take Action