Four developments

In this update

  • Aqua meeting minutes: Aqua’s September 1 Pacifico agenda item passed, moving the service request into NSSA negotiations. Aqua also posted its approved August 4 minutes, which put several important statements into the official record—but one water-use sentence combines figures that are not mathematically equivalent.
  • TCEQ timeline: TCEQ’s public project timeline changed again: the September 2 final-package supervisory-review milestone is again displayed, while the Final Package Rework Cycle now has no completion date and Pacifico’s registration remains pending.
  • Legislative follow-through: Senator Charles Schwertner has formally asked TCEQ for answers by September 18, and Representative Stan Gerdes’s chief of staff, Ben Watson, has relayed that TCEQ says it is “very far away from a decision.” That is welcome progress. The next step is written, public follow-through.
  • Technical supplement: A new Lost Pines Watch deep-dive technical supplement sharpens the emissions question with a line-by-line reconstruction and two recent TCEQ comparator registrations.
Only have two minutes?

The short version

  • Aqua’s Board approved the Pacifico agenda item on September 1, moving the service request into NSSA negotiations. That is a setback, but a limited one: the vote did not approve a completed water-service agreement. Aqua has also published the approved August 4 minutes.
  • The August minutes describe Pacifico’s requested use as “approximately 13,000 gallons per day, or 2.4 million gallons annually.” Those figures do not describe the same constant rate: 13,000 gallons per day would equal about 4.75 million gallons per year, while 2.4 million gallons per year averages about 6,575 gallons per day.
  • TCEQ’s Project 413471 page again displays the September 2 milestone labeled “FINAL PACKAGE TO TEAM LEADER OR SUPERVISOR FOR REVIEW (DATE).” The Final Package Rework Cycle still shows an August 26 start date but now has no completion date. The project, registration, and permit action remain PENDING. Central Registry now records 191 public-meeting requests, 147 written comments, and 3 hearing requests.
  • In a September 1 letter to TCEQ Executive Director Kelly Keel, Senator Schwertner asked three substantive questions about Standard Air Permit 185019 and requested a thorough response by Friday, September 18. His questions address technical review standards, permit stacking and cumulative impacts, and avenues for public participation.
  • Ben Watson, Representative Gerdes’s chief of staff, separately relayed this message from TCEQ: the project-record site shows each step in the process and the agency is “very far away from a decision on the permit.” That is reassuring, but it is an informal, secondhand account—not a written agency status determination or a guarantee about timing.
  • Lost Pines Watch has received no substantive response from Governor Greg Abbott or U.S. Senators Ted Cruz and John Cornyn as of September 3. We will update the record if that changes.
  • A new pre-decision supplement independently reconstructs the PGM70 unit-count problem and the SMT60 operating-hours conflict. Applying both items produces a diagnostic result of approximately 249 tons per year of NOx—still below the 250-ton line used in Pacifico’s application and not an official potential-to-emit determination.
  • Two recent TCEQ comparators sharpen the question: a smaller Pacifico registration stayed below 250 tons per year at essentially continuous operation without taking an operational limit, while Granbury used an enforceable rolling annual cap. The released Cedar Creek package does not yet clearly show either approach.
1 · Aqua vote and meeting minutes

Aqua’s Pacifico item passed; its August minutes are now public

Aqua’s Board approved the Pacifico agenda item on September 1, moving the service request into NSSA negotiations. That is a setback, but a limited one: the vote did not approve a completed water-service agreement. The completed NSSA should return to the Board for a publicly noticed vote.

Aqua has posted the approved minutes from its August 4 Board meeting. The minutes confirm several statements that previously rested on attendee accounts:

  • Pacifico requested 23 living-unit equivalents, or LUEs.
  • The applicant did not request fire flow from Aqua.
  • An approximately 13,340-foot water-line extension would be required.
  • Aqua had no nondisclosure agreement or completed service contract with the developer at that time.
  • Metering, flow controls, usage monitoring, and other binding terms would be negotiated in the Non-Standard Service Agreement, or NSSA.

The minutes also record residents asking for full-buildout water demand, binding volume limits, fire-flow information, independent hydrogeological review, and greater transparency before Aqua committed to service.

One sentence needs a mathematical clarification

The minutes say the proposed development was estimated to require “approximately 13,000 gallons per day, or 2.4 million gallons annually.” The word “or” makes the two figures sound equivalent, but they are not.

Published figureMathematical equivalent
13,000 gallons per day4,745,000 gallons per year if sustained every day
2.4 million gallons per yearAbout 6,575 gallons per day on an annual-average basis
9 gpm maximum-day demand in Aqua’s June study12,960 gallons over 24 hours

The third line strongly suggests a benign explanation: 13,000 gallons is likely the rounded maximum-day figure, while 2.4 million gallons is likely an annual-use estimate based on a lower average day. Both can be legitimate planning measures. They simply should not be presented as interchangeable without identifying their different time bases.

There is a second wording issue worth clarifying. The minutes say engineers determined that the “existing system” had capacity for the requested service. Aqua’s underlying June feasibility report, however, says existing Nuse Zone supply and pumping capacity are below the listed TCEQ requirements and makes service contingent on completion of identified Watterson supply, pumping, and storage projects. This may be shorthand in the minutes rather than a change in the engineering conclusion, but the public record should distinguish existing capacity from future capacity after required improvements.

The clean solution is straightforward: Aqua should publish the calculation supporting the 2.4-million-gallon annual estimate and make the final NSSA state separate, enforceable limits for annual volume, maximum-day demand, peak-hour flow, fire-water service, drought curtailment, and every material change in use. The completed agreement should return to the Board for a publicly noticed vote.

2 · TCEQ timeline

Material update: supervisory-review milestone restored

As observed September 3, 2026, TCEQ’s tracker again displays:

September 2, 2026Final Package to Team Leader or Supervisor for Review
Started August 26Final Package Rework Cycle now has no completion date

Both fields changed after yesterday’s check, when the supervisory-review milestone had disappeared and the rework cycle showed September 2 as completed. Two fresh checks confirmed today’s display. This suggests continuing internal revisions or data correction; Registration 185019 / Project 413471 remains PENDING, not approved.

Verify through TCEQ’s Air Permit Status page: select Status of Air New Source Review Permit Applications → New Source Review Air Permits, then search Project 413471.

TCEQ still shows:

  • No released final package or deficiency correspondence
  • No public meeting or hearing decision
  • No filing or docket
  • No public notice or participation deadline
  • No final agency action
Community participation now recorded191 meeting requests147 written comments3 hearing requests

Records Online still returns zero documents for Registration 185019. Verify the participation totals through TCEQ Central Registry: Central Registry Query → Program ID Search → 185019 → Commissioners’ Actions.

Deadline: None posted.

Most time-sensitive action: Submit or supplement a formal comment now, requesting disclosure of the final package, both deficiency exchanges, and the supervisory transmittal—and asking TCEQ to hold a public meeting before deciding Registration 185019.

3 · Legislative follow-through

Constituent pressure is producing movement

Senator Schwertner asks TCEQ for answers by September 18

Senator Charles Schwertner sent a September 1 letter to TCEQ Executive Director Kelly Keel concerning Pacifico CCK Energy’s Standard Air Permit 185019. Citing an “outpouring of concern from constituents,” he asked the agency to explain:

  1. The technical standards, modeling criteria, and emissions benchmarks used during the 45-day review window to decide whether a project qualifies for a Standard Air Permit rather than an individual New Source Review permit.
  2. The rules governing the combination or stacking of multiple Standard Air Permits at adjacent or co-located facilities—and how TCEQ evaluates cumulative emissions, site-wide thresholds, and localized air-quality impacts.
  3. How residents can submit concerns when a Standard Air Permit does not require a formal public hearing, and how TCEQ evaluates those concerns in its review.

Schwertner requested a thorough response by Friday, September 18, so he can accurately communicate TCEQ’s process, safeguards, and public-participation options to Senate District 5 residents.

That is meaningful progress. The letter places important questions before TCEQ in writing and requests an answer by a specific date. It does not, however, ask TCEQ to pause or deny the registration, release Pacifico’s corrected filing, or hold a voluntary public meeting. Those remain appropriate subjects for follow-up.

Gerdes’s office relays: TCEQ says it is “very far away from a decision”

Ben Watson, Representative Stan Gerdes’s chief of staff, separately shared what TCEQ told him about the online Project Record:

TCEQ tells me that site is for the public to see where each step is at along the way and that they are very far away from a decision on the permit.

That message is reassuring and adds important context to the September 2 supervisory-review entry: residents should not treat that internal workflow milestone as proof that approval is imminent. But the wording was relayed by Watson rather than issued as a formal written TCEQ status. It does not identify the current review stage, explain the tracker’s recent changes, or establish a binding timeline. TCEQ should confirm those points in writing.

Lost Pines Watch thanks Senator Schwertner, Representative Gerdes, Ben Watson, and their staffs for continuing to engage TCEQ on behalf of Bastrop County residents. We also encourage both offices to publish any agency response they receive.

As of September 3, Lost Pines Watch has received no substantive response from Governor Abbott or Senators Cruz and Cornyn. That statement concerns responses received by Lost Pines Watch; it does not claim knowledge of every action those offices may or may not have taken.

4 · Technical supplement

New technical supplement: two calculations and two TCEQ comparators

A new technical supplement prepared for possible inclusion in Earth Native Wilderness School’s pre-decision submission does not replace or revise Lost Pines Watch’s September 2 analysis. It documents the source records for two calculation issues and adds two recent registrations under the same Electric Generating Unit Standard Permit. Both exhibits concern the August 13 application and August 14 certification currently available to the public. They do not account for Pacifico’s undisclosed August 26 or September 2 deficiency responses, which may contain revisions.

Exhibit AThe arithmetic can now be reproduced line by line

The new reconstruction strengthens the PGM70 finding. Pacifico’s application identifies 11 PGM70 turbines in its summary, process table, emission-point range, and 1,326-MW fleet total. Yet the site-wide totals for all six listed criteria pollutants use the equivalent of six PGM70 units. The ammonia column alone uses all 11. The same division check reproduces the stated unit count for every other turbine family, making rounding an implausible explanation for the five-unit gap.

The SMT60 issue is different and should remain framed as a question for TCEQ. Its unit summary states 100-percent utilization and 8,760 normal operating hours, while its detailed sheet uses 4,400 total hours and produces the filed annual emissions on that lower basis. For each of the other five turbine families, the listed utilization percentage multiplied by 8,760 exactly matches the stated normal hours. That makes the SMT60 conflict reproducible even without Pacifico’s native workbook—but it does not tell the public which entry TCEQ considers controlling.

Adding the five PGM70 units omitted from the displayed site-wide subtotal raises the displayed-value NOx result from 233.61 to 240.26 tons per year. Applying the higher SMT60 schedule as a second diagnostic brings the result to approximately 249 tons per year. There is a harmless 0.04-ton rounding difference depending on method: subtracting the printed, rounded annual values yields 248.98, while calculating the added SMT60 hours from the printed 0.50-pound-per-hour rate yields 249.02. Both are appropriately described as approximately 249.

That screen remains below 250 tons per year. It is not a corrected application total, proof of ineligibility, or a final potential-to-emit calculation. Its significance is narrower: the margin in the released filing is extremely sensitive to which unit counts and operating-hour entries govern.

The supplement also annualizes the application’s normal-operation rates for all 48 listed turbines without applying the utilization percentages. That conservative screen produces approximately 439.75 tons per year of NOx and excludes the higher startup and shutdown rates. It is not offered as the project’s correct potential to emit; physical or inherent operational constraints could matter. It shows that Pacifico’s 233.61-ton annual figure depends on reduced-utilization assumptions or some other annual limitation that TCEQ must identify and explain.

Exhibit BRecent TCEQ records show two identifiable paths

The second exhibit compares Cedar Creek with two registrations TCEQ approved on July 9, 2025. They are useful examples of agency practice, not binding precedent.

RegistrationWhat the official record showsHow TCEQ addressed annual emissions
180656 · Pacifico Spunky16 turbines; 473 MW; the review says they would operate continuously with minimum downtime. The final table authorizes approximately 157.76 tons per year of NOx across the fleet.TCEQ answered No when asked whether the facility was taking an operational limit. Its authorized criteria-pollutant totals remain below the 250-ton PSD line at essentially continuous operation.
180579 · Granbury OpCo 1Eight turbines plus 87 linear generators; 932 MW. The turbine fleet’s 127.62-pound-per-hour NOx rate annualizes to approximately 558.98 tons per year.TCEQ answered Yes to an operational limit and authorized a 242.95-ton rolling 12-month turbine cap, monthly recalculation, fuel or heat-rate/output tracking, and continuous NOx and CO monitoring. Adding the 6.80-ton generator cap produces 249.75 tons per year of source-wide authorized NOx.
185019 · Pacifico Cedar Creek48 turbines; 1,326 MW. The listed normal-operation NOx rates total 100.40 pounds per hour, or approximately 439.75 tons per year if screened at 8,760 hours. Pacifico reports 233.61 tons annually using family-specific utilization assumptions.Pending. The released package says the modeled operating scenarios are not limits. No final authorization table is public, and the released record does not identify a comparable source-wide cap, averaging period, monthly calculation method, or monitoring architecture.

The comparison creates a focused question—not a predetermined answer. If Cedar Creek’s unrestricted or inherently constrained maximum emissions remain below the applicable PSD threshold, TCEQ should show that calculation as it did for the no-cap pathway. If TCEQ is relying on an annual limit, it should identify the enforceable cap, averaging period, calculation method, monitoring, recordkeeping, and treatment of every turbine and operating scenario. If neither pathway establishes eligibility, TCEQ should explain whether case-by-case New Source Review is required.

The Granbury record adds one more source-wide question. Its authorization quantified turbine combustion, linear generators, oil vents, and fugitive piping components, even though some balance-of-plant equipment can be authorized through other mechanisms. Cedar Creek’s released site-wide table assigns zero emissions to non-turbine sources. That does not prove such sources were omitted improperly, but TCEQ should identify every authorization covering auxiliary and balance-of-plant emissions and show how they enter the complete source-wide applicability determination.

What these exhibits do—and do not—establish

These exhibits materially improve the questions before the agency. They still do not prove that Cedar Creek exceeds 250 tons per year, that the 250-ton threshold necessarily governs, that PSD review is required, or that Pacifico intentionally misstated anything. The corrected application, final maximum-emissions table, and TCEQ technical review remain the controlling missing records.

Three specific actions

Take action: thank them—then ask for written follow-through

The most useful next step is to thank the offices that have engaged, ask them to continue, and place the same focused request directly into TCEQ’s public record.

1
Local representation

Contact Senator Schwertner and Representative Gerdes

Suggested subject: Pacifico Air Registration 185019 / Project 413471

Copy or adapt this message

Thank you for continuing to engage TCEQ about Pacifico Air Registration 185019 / Project 413471. Senator Schwertner, please publish TCEQ’s response to your September 1 letter after the September 18 deadline. Representative Gerdes, please obtain and publish written confirmation of the project’s current review stage and TCEQ’s statement that it is “very far away from a decision.” Please also ask TCEQ to address the contrasting approaches in Registrations 180656 and 180579, explain the recent changes to the September 2 team-leader-or-supervisor tracking entry and the Final Package Rework Cycle, release the deficiency correspondence and corrected final package before any final action, and hold a voluntary public meeting for affected residents.

2
Public record

Send the focused request directly to TCEQ

Open TCEQ eComment →

How to file it

  1. Open the official TCEQ eComment form using the button above.
  2. Enter 185019 in the Permit Number box—not Project 413471—and select Next.
  3. Confirm that the form identifies RN102987831 — B & W Ranch, Pacifico CCK Energy 1 LLC, and Bastrop County.
  4. Accept the privacy policy and complete the required contact fields.
  5. Paste the request below into the Comments box. The form has no separate public-meeting checkbox, so keep that request explicitly in the text. The comment field is limited to 10,000 characters; one optional Word or PDF attachment under 10 MB may be uploaded.
  6. Submit the form and save the confirmation email. If no confirmation arrives within one hour, TCEQ says it has not received the filing; call the Office of the Chief Clerk at (512) 239-3300.
Copy and paste this focused request

Regarding Pacifico CCK Energy 1 LLC, TCEQ Registration 185019 / Project 413471: Before any decision, please (1)disclose the final package, both deficiency exchanges, the supervisory-review transmittal, the emissions workbook, and the final technical review; (2) explain the recent changes to the September 2 supervisory-review tracking entry, including its temporary disappearance and restoration, and why the Final Package Rework Cycle now shows no completion date; (3)resolve and publicly explain the emissions-calculation and enforceability questions raised in the record, including whether final eligibility rests on maximum emissions below the applicable PSD threshold without reduced-utilization assumptions, an enforceable annual cap and compliance system, or another stated basis consistent with Registrations 180656 and 180579; and (4)hold a public meeting in Bastrop County before deciding this registration. Please place this submission in the public record and notify me of future notices or action on Registration 185019.

3
Follow up

Contact Abbott, Cruz, and Cornyn

If you previously contacted these offices, follow up and ask for a written response. Ask Governor Abbott to support a complete public record and public meeting before state action. Ask Senators Cruz and Cornyn to obtain an EPA Region 6 response addressing the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration threshold and complete-project scope.

Current status: Registration 185019 remains pending. No signed approval has been located.

Documentation

Source notes