Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Andrew Mazzella pitches small data center and icebreaker bid; residents urge moratorium and tighter tower rules
Summary
At the May 4 Petersburg Borough Assembly meeting, developer Andrew Mazzella and utility staff discussed a proposed ~1.5–2 MW private data center at the old Ocean Beauty Cannery site; residents and planning commissioners pressed for ordinance timelines, NEPA review and limits on tower siting. Utility staff said the project uses existing service and can be managed to avoid harming other customers.
Andrew Mazzella, CEO of Mazzella, Alaska, told the Petersburg Borough Assembly on May 4 that his downtown pier and related property could host both an icebreaker home‑port bid and a small private data center that would use an existing 1.5–2 megawatt transformer at the former Ocean Beauty Cannery site. Speaking by Zoom, Mazzella said the property already has deepwater infrastructure and that private investment tied to those uses could bring housing and other economic benefits to Petersburg.
Public commenters pushed back. Joshua Adams of the planning commission urged the assembly to adopt a communications‑tower overlay to prevent private companies from consuming small, buildable lots with tower sites and to “have the courage to say no” to proposed sites. Judy Omer read a statement from Rebecca Knight calling for an immediate borough moratorium on new cell towers and data‑center construction until impacts can be evaluated under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Tom Kowalski asked how a data center would affect local power availability and community growth goals.
Utility director Carl Hegerman described the project as a small, privately financed facility that would plug into an existing transformer. He said the likely technical approach would use closed‑loop water cooling, lithium iron phosphate battery backup and not rely on a continuous diesel generator; the utility’s FAQ materials included sound‑level estimates (roughly 60 decibels at the building exterior in normal operation) and water‑use comparisons intended to show the scale would be modest compared with hyperscale facilities. Hegerman said the borough could draft ordinances to limit larger data‑center growth in the future, but because the property is privately owned any purchaser can apply for service and the utility must treat the request as a customer application.
Greenspark representatives (the prospective operator) told the assembly they aim to be “grid‑responsive” and to structure service agreements that allow curtailment on days when the system is at risk; the company also discussed a battery system sized to give a short managed shutdown and to smooth ramp‑up of servers. A Greenspark representative said early designs favor closed‑loop coolant and energy‑efficiency measures to minimize water use.
Assembly members repeatedly asked for concrete impact scenarios. WaterWorth’s rate presentation earlier in the meeting showed how adding a multi‑megawatt customer could materially increase utility sales and reduce upward pressure on rates; speakers said the borough will model scenarios where an additional 1–2 MW of sales reduces needed rate increases. Several assembly members asked staff to return with ordinance language and timeline options for tower siting and for data‑center regulation.
What’s next: staff said they are continuing negotiations on a sales contract and advised the assembly that a power‑sale agreement and any large commercial sales agreement would address dispatch/curtailment and diesel surcharge terms. The assembly encouraged staff to draft ordinance language and to return with scenarios showing how new large customers would affect electric and wastewater rates, cash reserves and capital planning.
