Only have two minutes?
Pacifico should find a different site.
The project is enormous, the location is already a community, and the public record is incomplete.
The bottom line
A 710 MW methane-gas plant does not belong in the middle of Cedar Creek.
Pacifico proposes a large gas-generation facility on roughly 2,842 acres at 382 Earl Callahan Road, tied in the filing to approximately 490 MW of computing load. Thousands of homes and community sites already surround it. The responsible answer is a more suitable industrial location.
The proposal in four numbers
The scale is difficult to reconcile with this location
These figures come from Pacifico’s JETI filings and the Observatory’s privacy-safe GIS analysis.
Why this site fails
Five facts should stop the approval process from outrunning the evidence
Not every impact has been quantified. That is precisely why approvals and subsidies should wait—and why Pacifico should evaluate a site with far fewer conflicts.
This is an existing community, not a remote industrial site
Privacy-safe GIS data show 854 residential sites within one mile and 5,701 within three. Fifteen schools or childcare locations are also within three miles.
Drought, wildfire history, and emergency limits are present facts
The site is in D2 Severe Drought in a region marked by the 2011 and 2015 fires. Project fire-water and industrial-response capacity remain unverified.
The proposed technology brings industrial burdens
Multiple methane-gas turbines and their support equipment raise air, low-frequency noise, fire, waste-heat, lighting, and operating-duration questions beside homes and schools.
The public-benefit tradeoff is not persuasive
The filing pairs $2.237 billion and 710 MW with only 25 permanent jobs, while seeking a ten-year JETI school-tax limitation and county incentives.
The full-buildout record is not ready
The turbine fleet, operating profile, air record, noise modeling, water and fire-water plans, site plan, and cumulative-impact review are still incomplete or unavailable.
The reasonable ask
Pause. Disclose. Independently review. Relocate.
Residents do not have to prove the final off-site concentration of every pollutant or the exact decibel level at every home before decision-makers recognize an incompatible and under-documented site.
- PauseWithhold tax abatements and the school-tax limitation.
- DisclosePublish one full-buildout record covering every phase, turbine, generator, pipeline, water source, and foreseeable expansion.
- ReviewRequire independent air, noise, water, fire, emergency, and cumulative-impact analysis with public review.
- RelocateDirect Pacifico toward an industrial location with substantial buffers and verified infrastructure.
What to do now
Make a short, specific, decision-relevant record
A respectful call, email, participation form, or public comment is more useful when it names the project, states a position, cites one fact, and makes one concrete request.
Show up Monday, July 27
Attend the 9:30 a.m. hearing at 804 Pecan Street. Ask the court to strengthen the draft and require binding site-suitability, full-buildout, cumulative-impact, and public-review safeguards.
Open the official agendaContact all five court members
Tell the County Judge and Commissioners: do not subsidize Pacifico here. Require an independent alternative-site analysis and a location with real buffers and verified emergency and water capacity.
Get county contactsReference JETI application J0049
Ask the Comptroller not to advance J0049 on this record. Current law still requires a compelling-factor finding; Pacifico’s assertion is not the statutory determination.
Email the JETI officeA 30-second message
Use your own words. Keep the ask unmistakable.
“I am a Bastrop County resident. I oppose public subsidy for Pacifico Cedar Creek at this location. A 710 MW gas plant surrounded by thousands of homes should not move forward without full-buildout, cumulative-impact, emergency, and alternative-site reviews. Please require Pacifico to seek a more suitable industrial site.”
Check the record yourselfThe short brief is a doorway—not a substitute for the evidence.