Pacifico says its earlier project figures are out of date. Aqua should pause before voting.

Two public filings and one relayed company statement

The released records reviewed contain several capacity figures carrying different labels:

In an email reviewed by Lost Pines Watch, Chief of Staff Ben Watson said he asked Pacifico directly about concerns raised by the air-permit records and then relayed what he identified as Pacifico’s response.

Pacifico said the JETI figures are “out of date” and explained that the air application represents a larger, conservative equipment envelope rather than the capacity normally delivered to the customer. It attributed the difference to redundancy, maintenance, and outages, along with temperature and elevation that can reduce real-world turbine output.

That explanation may help distinguish maximum turbine ratings, site-rated generation, and customer-delivered capacity. It does not yet reconcile the released records reviewed.

This is not evidence that the project “nearly doubled.” These figures may measure different engineering quantities. It is evidence that Pacifico now considers its earlier government-facing figures outdated—and that agencies still considering approvals need one current project description.

The ORC question remained unresolved immediately before filing

An Organic Rankine Cycle system uses heat from turbine exhaust to generate additional electricity. ORC equipment appeared in the June JETI application and in a May plan later released through Aqua.

It does not appear in Pacifico’s August 14 air application.

The newly released TCEQ correspondence shows why that omission matters.

On June 23, a TCEQ reviewer reported that, after consulting other technical specialists and management, there was concurrence that Pacifico’s proposed ORC should be included in the named-source category carrying the lower 100-ton-per-year major-source threshold.

That was an initial technical and management position—not a final TCEQ ruling.

Pacifico’s consultant sought reconsideration and submitted a white paper supporting use of the 250-ton threshold. On August 11, the reviewer wrote that the proposed path had not cleared and that the issue was being sent to TCEQ’s Office of Legal Services.

The reviewer also said Pacifico was not precluded from filing while the issue remained unresolved, although additional review or notice could be required depending on the result.

Three days later, Pacifico filed an application that uses the 250-ton framework, describes only simple-cycle turbines and does not mention the ORC or the pending classification question.

The released record does not contain a final conclusion from TCEQ’s Office of Legal Services. It also does not establish why the ORC was omitted.

If Pacifico genuinely abandoned the ORC, it may lawfully change the project it seeks to authorize—but Aqua and other agencies should determine whether their earlier reviews still evaluate the current design. If the ORC remains planned or has merely been deferred, TCEQ should explain how it will be included in the source-wide permitting analysis.

“Worst-case” electrical capacity does not resolve annual emissions

Pacifico told Rep. Gerdes’s office that the air application reflects a “conservative, worst-case envelope” covering the maximum the equipment could produce.

That may help explain the difference between maximum turbine ratings and normal customer delivery. It does not answer a separate question about annual air emissions.

The currently released application reports nitrogen-oxide emissions of 233.61 tons per year. But its Appendix A summary labels the PGM70 group as 11 units while reporting 7.98 tons per year—a subtotal equal to only six times the listed 1.33-ton per-unit value. Applying that displayed per-unit value to all 11 turbines raises the independent source-wide calculation to approximately 240.26 tons per year—about 9.74 tons below the 250-ton threshold Pacifico applies.

That is not the only internal inconsistency affecting the calculation. The unit-specific summary lists the eight SMT60 turbines at 100% annual utilization and 8,760 normal operating hours, while the detailed SMT60 worksheets use 4,380 normal hours plus 20 startup and shutdown events. Applying the summary’s 8,760-hour schedule after the PGM70 adjustment produces an independent diagnostic result of approximately 249 tons per year of nitrogen oxides—roughly one ton below 250.

Neither 240.26 nor 249 tons per year is a corrected total adopted by Pacifico or TCEQ. The 240.26-ton result corrects the apparent PGM70 unit-count discrepancy using the application’s displayed values. The approximately 249-ton result additionally assumes that the SMT60 schedule shown in the summary—not the conflicting schedule in the detailed worksheet—was intended.

The 249-ton result is not an official potential-to-emit determination and does not prove that PSD review applies. It demonstrates how materially the unresolved unit count and operating schedule affect the project’s claimed margin below 250 tons. The released record reviewed does not contain a TCEQ determination resolving either discrepancy. TCEQ should require, verify, and publicly disclose a reconciled final calculation package before relying on the source-wide totals.

That reconciliation is especially important because the model-specific worksheets say their operating scenarios were used to estimate emissions and “shall not be used to limit” operating hours, startup and shutdown events, or natural-gas firing.

That language does not by itself prove the application is ineligible or that the facility’s legal potential to emit exceeds 250 tons. Under 30 TAC §116.615(2), representations regarding maximum emission rates become conditions of the registration. The remaining issue is whether the corrected source-wide annual limits and the methods for determining compliance are stated clearly enough to be practically enforceable.

TCEQ should identify:

• The corrected source-wide annual total for each pollutant.
• Which SMT60 operating schedule is operative and why.
• The applicable annual or rolling averaging period.
• Required operating-hour and startup records.
• Monitoring and calculation methods.
• How emissions from different combinations of turbines will be tracked source-wide.
• What monitoring and calculation method makes source-wide compliance with each annual limit reliably determinable.

Pacifico’s statement addresses electrical capacity. It does not establish that the application’s annual pollution totals represent a worst-case operating envelope.

The application also acknowledges that the facility would be a major source under the separate Title V operating-permit program while claiming minor status for PSD preconstruction review. Those programs use different legal tests, but describing the project simply as a “minor source” would be incomplete.

TCEQ’s live record continues to show Registration 185019 and Project 413471 as pending, not approved. A Final Package Rework Cycle began August 26 and has no posted completion date.

A supporting white paper misquotes relevant EPA guidance

A revised white paper submitted to TCEQ on Pacifico’s behalf through Trinity Consultants misquotes a relevant April 2022 EPA waste-heat publication.

The paper presents a sentence as a direct quotation while adding the unmarked words “in combustion exhaust.” EPA’s sentence says the steam Rankine cycle involves “using waste heat to generate steam.” Pacifico’s clean revision instead says “using waste heat in combustion exhaust to generate steam.”

Pacifico’s supplied redline uses EPA’s wording—“using waste heat”—but does not disclose the additional words appearing in the clean revision submitted with it.

EPA’s surrounding discussion separately addresses combustion exhaust and hot exhaust streams. The added concept is therefore plausible in context—but it is not part of the quoted sentence.

The released records do not identify who personally made the edit or establish any intent. The misquotation does not determine whether the 100- or 250-ton threshold applies. It does warrant correction, and TCEQ’s legal and technical analysis should rely on EPA’s April 2022 wording and the equipment Pacifico actually proposes to build.

Why this matters to Aqua

Aqua does not need to decide the federal air-permitting question. It needs to determine whether its June water study still evaluates the project Pacifico currently intends to build.

The June 22 feasibility study tested developer-supplied assumptions of:

Electrical capacity does not translate automatically into potable-water demand. Pacifico’s newer MW figures do not prove that its Aqua demand increased.

They do require Aqua to determine whether the project’s land uses, phases, equipment, construction needs, cooling design, fire protection, and other Aqua-supplied uses remain the same.

Aqua’s current Water Service Tariff, Revision 49, requires detailed land uses, full-buildout average and peak demand by land use, project phasing, fire-flow information, and on-site storage and pressurization information.

Aqua’s June 26 transmittal also told the applicant that if changes were needed, a new study would be required at the developer’s expense.

Aqua has already applied this basic principle to Pacifico once. On June 3, staff recommended tabling the project after learning that it was a data center and would need a revised feasibility study. The Board tabled the resolution. Read the approved June 3 minutes.

The same standard should apply now that Pacifico says its earlier project figures are out of date and major elements of the current design remain unreconciled.

What Aqua should require

1. 01

   One consolidated, current description of the project’s facilities, land uses, and phases.

2. 02

   An explanation of what the 1,325.76 MW, 1,100 MW, and 770 MW figures each measure.

3. 03

   A definitive statement on whether all 48 turbines and the ORC remain planned.

4. 04

   Full-buildout Aqua demand by land use and phase.

5. 05

   Current construction, process, cooling, and fire-water requirements.

6. 06

   Current storage and pressurization plans.

7. 07

   A written determination from Aqua’s engineer explaining whether the June study’s 23-LUE and 14-gpm assumptions still apply.

If relevant inputs changed or cannot be verified against the current project, Pacifico should fund a new feasibility study and the resulting materials should return to the Board for a public vote.