Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Albany utility board delays decision on data‑center partnership, asks staff for financial scenarios
Summary
The utility board agreed to pause a decision on joining a regional data‑center subscription and asked staff to return in two weeks with financial analyses of different commitment levels and revenue‑share scenarios. Concerns centered on a proposed 10‑year subscription and the city’s existing excess capacity.
The Albany Office Building Board voted on Aug. 14 to continue negotiations and delay a decision on participating in a regional data‑center project while staff provides more detailed financial scenarios.
Mister Jacobs, introducing the item, told the board that statewide demand for data‑center power had been reported at about 7,000 megawatts and that one nearby site (Chris County) had rezoned roughly 600 acres and proposed a phase‑one buildout that would seek an 80‑megawatt load. "They're gonna commit 30 megawatts," Jacobs said, and participating electric cities would share revenue — the presentation described a 50/50 split for participants while the host jurisdiction retains 100% of its 30 MW.
Board members pressed for clarity on several points: how much of Albany’s excess capacity would be available (Jacobs said the city’s excess is roughly 18 megawatts, with 5 megawatts already committed under a separate Robertsdale arrangement), how long subscription contracts would run, and what the city would pay and receive at different commitment levels. "I don't think we have enough information here to be making this decision today," one member said, citing market volatility and the risk of long‑term commitments.
Members also discussed the local generation landscape and litigation and regulatory changes affecting dispatchable resources; Jacobs noted that administrative and regulatory shifts could change how coal‑fired plants such as Shearer are used as dispatchable resources. Commissioners asked staff to model outcomes across several commitment sizes and to include revenue, costs, and contingency scenarios.
The board moved and seconded a motion to continue negotiations and to ask Electric City Group (ECG/MEAG) and city staff to provide scenario analyses. The motion passed by recorded voice vote; members indicated they would take up the item again in two weeks.
Next steps: staff will request more detailed contract terms and revenue projections from ECG/MEAG and return with options showing the fiscal impact of committing different megawatt amounts and contract lengths.
