The Community Fact Sheet, checked line by line

The headings imply responsive engagement but identify no resident-facing meeting, survey, listening session, participant list, outreach log or input-to-change matrix. The media contact invites future questions but does not document prior listening. Pacifico may have learned concerns through public testimony, news, social media or officials. The released record therefore does not establish direct engagement—and cannot prove that no private communication occurred.

The address, proposed data-center use and on-site gas plant are supported, but the filings describe their legal structure differently. JETI supplements treat the power facility and adjacent data center as distinct projects and say an unrelated third party would own and operate the data center; the fact sheet markets one Cedar Creek campus. The air application covers Pacifico CCK Energy 1 LLC’s 48 turbines and 1,326 MW—not the data-center buildings. Pacifico should reconcile the entities, ownership, project boundary and phase scope.

The handout supplies no baseline comparison, numerical standard, final design, approval condition or enforceable agreement supporting this project-wide claim. Air requirements are principally state and federal—not County—requirements. Some proposed measures could exceed minimum requirements, but the lighting, noise, layout, road, water and hiring promises must be judged separately below.

The application supports BACT, proposed SCR and oxidation catalysts, and emissions monitoring—including federal continuous NOx monitoring for turbines using SCR. It does not support wording that reads as completed approval: TCEQ’s status record reviewed August 29 still listed Registration 185019 as pending. “Stringent” is an undefined promotional adjective, not the name of the authorization or a TCEQ classification. The rows below separate each part of the sentence.

Pacifico filed the standard-permit registration on August 14. Its application says construction and operation may not begin without written approval from TCEQ’s executive director. The official status record reviewed August 29 still listed Registration 185019 as pending. The supported present-tense wording is “has applied,” not “is permitted.”

TCEQ’s standard permit has enforceable conditions and requires BACT. But “stringent” is not a permit type, defined regulatory category or project-specific agency finding. TCEQ describes a standard permit as an efficient alternative for similar qualifying facilities to a case-specific permit, and says it cannot authorize emissions that trigger major NSR. Without a stated comparison or metric, the adjective is not independently verifiable.

This is supportable if TCEQ approves the registration and Pacifico builds and operates as represented. TCEQ says all standard permits except the Pollution Control Standard Permit require BACT. Here, BACT is incorporated into the prewritten EGU Standard Permit; the released filing does not identify a separate case-specific BACT selection or a PSD permit review and claims emissions remain below PSD and major-NSR thresholds.

The application says all 48 turbines would use selective catalytic reduction and oxidation catalysts to control NOx, CO and VOC emissions. It also says those controls do not operate at maximum efficiency during startup, when NOx, CO and VOC emissions increase. “Oxidation catalyst” is the application’s more precise term for the fact sheet’s “CO catalyst.”

This statement is substantively true. The state standard permit requires operating, fuel and maintenance records plus NOx certification and re-certification. Because the application says every turbine will use SCR and comply with 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart KKKKa, current federal rules generally require initial testing and continuous NOx emissions monitoring for these post-combustion-controlled turbines. The fact sheet does not describe the monitoring scope, and the record does not establish continuous direct measurement of every pollutant.

Pacifico has applied for a TCEQ EGU Standard Permit covering 48 natural-gas turbines totaling 1,326 MW of maximum nominal output. The application proposes SCR and oxidation catalysts. State requirements include records, certification and re-certification; current federal rules require initial testing and continuous NOx monitoring for turbines using post-combustion controls. TCEQ’s status record reviewed August 29 still listed Registration 185019 as pending; the application also says a separate Title V operating-permit application will be required.

On-site generation is proposed, but “completely self-reliant,” no ERCOT supply and zero rate impact require an electrical one-line, import/export limits, utility-service terms, backup arrangement and operating profile that are not in the cited record. The earlier JETI filing described electricity as primarily—not exclusively—behind the meter and listed Bluebonnet interconnection equipment. A private power plant alone does not prove zero grid or rate interaction.

Bastrop County confirms that the two Chapter 312 applications were withdrawn August 19 and that no County abatement agreements were approved or incentives granted. Pacifico told KVUE that JETI J0049 was also withdrawn; the Comptroller page reviewed August 29 still displayed it in Application Phase, so that portion remains the company’s reported action rather than an independently posted agency disposition.

The named Chapter 312 requests were withdrawn, and Pacifico says it withdrew JETI. That supports its current stated position. The handout supplies no binding commitment covering every other incentive program, later application or separately owned data-center operator; actual taxes will also depend on ownership, appraisal, depreciation, exemptions and phasing.

The released JETI line-item model cited here does not show this. Its peak 2029 estimate is about $6.11 million for Bastrop County plus $1.36 million for County Road—about $7.47 million combined. The model’s roughly $29.33 million total includes the school district and two emergency-service districts. A newer whole-campus model could differ, but the fact sheet does not cite or attach one or show the 30% calculation.

Aqua evaluated a developer-supplied 23-LUE potable connection and recorded no Aqua fire-flow request, so “Aqua potable service only” fairly describes that request. It does not establish “minimal” whole-campus consumption or reconcile cooling, humidification, turbine washing, fire supply, sanitation, construction, landscaping and every source and use.

The older JETI filing identifies air-cooled or fin-fan equipment for the power plant, supporting a low-water concept. But the materials cited here do not include a binding whole-campus design establishing literally one fill and zero later makeup, maintenance loss, leaks, blowdown, humidification or auxiliary cooling use, or the data-center heat-rejection design.

LPGCD’s public well database, reviewed August 29, shows three non-exempt industrial wells near the site—LP-996516, LP-996517 and LP-996518—as pending. The older JETI filing also described the well permit as pending, and Aqua’s study lists no Aqua fire-flow request. Without a permit or order, reservoir volume, refill trigger, test demand, evaporation or leak assumption, and pumping plan, neither the claimed cap nor the below-cap forecast is independently auditable.

Aqua requires a 13,340-foot 8-inch approach main and plans to upsize it to 12 inches under existing capital project NU-3. Developer-specific infrastructure, title and easement costs are assigned to the developer through a future agreement. The released record does not show which residents could connect, when, at what cost or with what available capacity.

Twenty-three LUEs was the developer’s requested design input. Aqua modeled 9 gpm maximum-day and 14 gpm peak-hour demand; it did not derive the claimed 2,000 gallons per day, label 6,900 gallons per day a permitted maximum, or establish a binding whole-site ceiling. Aqua’s posted August packet was marked draft and tabled, and its September 1 agenda schedules a new approval vote; service remained contingent on a future Non-Standard Service Agreement and required infrastructure.

A large subdivision could use far more potable water, but the fact sheet gives no density, acreage method, zoning assumption or proposed residential plan. Comparing the industrial proposal with a hypothetical alternative whose assumptions are not disclosed is not evidence of the project’s own complete water demand or impacts.

The two figures total about 2,840 acres, close to the approximately 2,841–2,842-acre tract in Aqua and JETI records. Public stormwater records separately identify 477.54 acres of planned disturbance across power and data-center footprints, and released plans have changed. Pacifico has not defined “developed” or “undeveloped,” explained the difference, or shown how later phases, roads, utilities and easements are counted. “Undeveloped” does not mean legally conserved.

The air application’s preliminary concept plan marks FEMA Zone A/AE around the broader site area and plots the shown power block outside the labeled zones; Aqua’s letter separately says its FEMA map review found no part of the property in a special flood-hazard area. The cited records do not reconcile those descriptions or include a final grading, drainage or floodplain package. “Floodplain unaltered,” buffers, berms, fencing, landscaping and onsite stormwater management remain testable design promises, not verified conditions.

The measures are specific enough to test later, but the cited materials do not include a final photometric plan, fixture schedule, property-line illumination limits, curfew or binding approval condition. The accurate present-tense description is that Pacifico promises these measures—not that compliance has been demonstrated.

The cited materials do not identify a project-specific sound study, proposed limits, measurement protocol, complaint process, enforcement mechanism or public County agreement. ‘Working with’ is not a measurable protection until the proposed standard and the County’s authority and role are disclosed.

Pacifico publicly announced the set-aside. The materials cited here do not identify the parcel, ownership, permitted uses, access, operating costs, decision process or a deed restriction or easement that would preserve community use over time.

The wording says ‘seeking,’ not guaranteeing. No local-hire target, residency definition, vendor goal, reporting schedule, wage standard, remedy or contract term is provided. The older generation-only JETI filing projected 25 permanent jobs but did not make them County-resident positions.

The earlier JETI filing listed County access/ROW permits as pending and the TxDOT permit as pending final access design. The fact sheet does not attach the traffic study, approved drawings, cost allocation, construction route, road-use agreement, inspection baseline or repair security. These may become valuable commitments if made enforceable.

An earlier February Aqua concept showed two large buildings; a later May plan showed four narrower buildings, two marked future. Neither is identified in the reviewed record as a final construction set, and neither contains a complete load schedule. Pacifico should identify which plan the fact sheet describes and whether ‘two’ means the first phase or full buildout.

The fact sheet does not define the services, dollar value, beneficiaries, duration, decision process or enforceable commitments behind this language. Specific road, water, land and hiring proposals can be evaluated separately; the broader benefit claim cannot yet be audited.