On Monday the Public Utility Commission of Texas walked into the 200th District Court in Travis County and sued the Attorney General's office. The dispute is over two columns in a spreadsheet: the county where a data center sits, and the regional water planning area it draws from. The PUC says those two fields, released together, are a homeland-security risk. The AG's Open Records Division has ruled twice that they are not. So the state's utility regulator is now litigating against the state's top lawyer to keep the public from learning which counties the public's data centers are in.
That is the week in one sentence. Every big Texas story this week was a fight over information, and who gets to see it. ERCOT's community-impact questionnaire forces every large-load developer to disclose ownership, water, tax abatements and on-site generation by Monday at 5 p.m. Taylor annexed a 664-acre gas-and-data-center campus so that the city, not Williamson County, would be the one asking the questions. The NRC put four AP1000s on the public record for 45 days of comment. And the industry, having noticed that it is losing the argument, stood up a lobbying coalition whose president says the job is to "make sure the economic story gets told." Everyone wants the story told. They just disagree about which parts.
The PUC Sues the Attorney General Over Two Columns
Some background, because the survey itself is the quiet part. The Legislature did not pass a data-center water bill. It attached a budget rider to the 2026–27 General Appropriations Act, Article VIII-57, directing the PUC to survey large electric and water users and report to the Governor and the Legislative Budget Board by the end of this year. The commission sent its Energy and Water Use Survey to 377 facilities. By a June House hearing, 28 companies covering 92 facilities had answered, which one state representative called "pathetic." After the House Natural Resources Committee had the survey reopened in July, the count stood at 77 data centers and 13 crypto mines as of August. Ninety out of 377, on a survey the Legislature ordered.
Then a McLennan County resident and four journalists filed Public Information Act requests for the responses. The PUC asked the AG for permission to withhold the location fields under the Texas Homeland Security Act. The AG's office said no, finding the commission had not shown the data "identifies the technical details of particular vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure to an act of terrorism." The PUC's petition argues the opposite: that county plus water planning area would give "a person intending an act of terrorism or a hostile act by a foreign adversary of the United States" the ability to "select specific, high-load facilities and identify the regional transmission and distribution infrastructure and water systems on which each depends." The commission is not trying to seal the whole survey, only those two fields.
Here is the problem with the argument. The county where a data center sits is not a secret. It is in the TDLR filing, the county appraisal roll, the Chapter 403 abatement application, the ERCOT large-load queue by county, and usually a press release with a rendering. A water planning area is a map on the TWDB website. The PUC is asking a district judge to find that a combination of two public facts becomes a state secret when a regulator writes them in the same row. If that holds, it holds for everything the Legislature asked the commission to report. The survey was ordered so the state could learn how much water and power this build-out needs and where. A report that cannot say where is a report that cannot answer the question it was commissioned to answer.
And the timing is its own commentary. This is the same commission that adopted §25.194 with a $50,000-per-megawatt interconnection fee, and the same commission ERCOT reports to on the Governor's large-load audit. Monday at 5 p.m., ERCOT's Data Center Community-Impact RFI comes due, and every 25 MW-plus project has to disclose, under notarized attestation, its ownership, its water source, its tax abatements and its on-site generation. The state is collecting more location data about data centers than it has ever had. It is also in court arguing that it cannot let you see the county. Classic.
"We Can't Drink Data": Taylor Annexes 664 Acres and a Power Plant
Thursday night the Taylor City Council voted 5-0 to approve a development agreement with Big Watt Digital of South Dakota and PowerHouse Data Centers of Virginia, voluntarily annexing 664 acres between FM 112 and US 79, just east of the city limits in unincorporated Williamson County. The project, known as Project Mustang until the agreement renamed it the Taylor Technology Campus, is a 500 MW data center with an option for another 500 MW, powered by an on-site gas-fired plant that can sell its surplus to the grid. Austin Free Press has reported the generator at 477 MW; Community Impact earlier reported a larger reciprocating-engine fleet. The agreement text does not pin a number, so treat the generation figure as roughly half a gigawatt and read the fine print when it is filed with TCEQ.
The route here is the interesting part. Developers withdrew their zoning and annexation application on September 3 after the Planning and Zoning Commission tabled it for 90 days in August. Instead of leaving, they negotiated directly with the city, which published a development agreement on October 2 and voted six days later. The agreement is, by Texas data-center standards, unusually specific: closed-loop cooling on reclaimed water with a one-time fill of 1.575 million gallons for the entire site and potable water only for restrooms; a noise cap of 65 dBA at the property line against the 85 dBA the state allows; 300-foot setbacks on three sides and 700 feet on the south, where the neighbors are; a 400-foot landscaped buffer with six-foot berms; dark-sky lighting; and a withdrawn TCEQ wastewater discharge permit. The developers put up $28.2 million in community commitments, including $10.2 million for Taylor ISD, $13 million to the city and $1.5 million in scholarships, and asked for no tax abatement. The city projects $1.38 billion in gross tax revenue over 20 years.
None of which satisfied the room. An overflow crowd carried "We can't drink data" signs, a 1,400-signature petition for a moratorium was rejected on the grounds that state law does not allow it, and a writ of mandamus on that question is pending at the Third Court of Appeals. One resident, Scott Gibbs, asked the council why "these projects are galloping full speed ahead here in Taylor, when other cities, counties, and politicians from all parties are saying, 'Whoa, let's slow this horse down.'" The council's answer, in effect, was that the horse was leaving either way, and annexation is the only way a city gets to write the rules. In unincorporated Williamson County, the setbacks, the noise cap and the reclaimed-water requirement would have been suggestions. Inside the city limits they are a contract.
Two things to watch. First, the city spokesperson's line that the project "will generate its own power and will not need the same approvals" under the Governor's audit is true for ERCOT and not obviously true for TCEQ. The Governor's September 21 directive told TCEQ to halt all permits sought by data centers until the audit completes, and Bracewell's read is that it catches behind-the-meter gas regardless of grid interconnection. A half-gigawatt gas plant needs an air permit. If that permit is not already in hand, the project is paused by the same state that Taylor just agreed to out-regulate. Second, this is the fourth data center around Taylor and the twelfth in Williamson County. The county that landed Samsung is now the county where the resistance is best organized. That is not a coincidence, and the industry noticed.
The NRC Says "Issue the License." Preliminarily. Pending Comment.
This morning's Federal Register carries the NRC's draft environmental impact statement for Fermi America's combined license application for Project Matador Nuclear Units 1 through 4, four Westinghouse AP1000s in Carson County next to the Pantex plant. The staff's preliminary recommendation is that the NRC "issue the requested COL to Fermi America contingent upon successful completion of the safety review and unless safety issues mandate otherwise." Comments are open for 45 days, through November 23, on Docket NRC-2026-0100.
The schedule is the story. Fermi filed its COL application on June 17, 2025. The scoping notice went out March 20, 2026. The draft EIS landed October 9. That is under seven months from scoping to draft, which is not how the NRC has historically done large light-water reactors, and the reason is that this is the first use of the agency's pilot letting an applicant prepare its own draft EIS under NRC supervision. Fermi was the first private company admitted to that pilot. The environmental review is the part of the COL process that used to take years. If this holds, it will be the template every reactor developer with a Texas site uses, and I flagged last week that Blue Energy has already asked ERCOT for the first reactor slot at Victoria. Fermi is coming at the same problem from the federal side: get the license, not the queue position.
Now the other column. Four AP1000s is roughly 4,400 MW of nuclear, and Fermi's campus pitch has grown from 11 GW of permitted generation to a stated 17 GW as of its September 28 release naming NAES to operate a gas-turbine fleet of which 2.2 GW has actually been secured. The first announced tenant terminated its $150 million agreement last December. The second, TensorWave, signed a 222 MW, 15-year lease valued at about $6.5 billion in August, and the closing has been extended to October 31 pending an investment-grade guaranty. The NRC can say "issue the license" all it likes. A reactor with no customer is a very expensive draft EIS. Watch the 31st.
The Industry Hires a Storyteller
The Lone Star Infrastructure Coalition launched October 1 out of Houston, with former PUCT commissioner and DOE official Jimmy Glotfelty as president. The member wall is a who's who of the people who get paid when a large load interconnects: QTS, NextEra Energy Resources, Siemens Energy, Quanta Services, the Nuclear Energy Institute, Lancium, Grid United, Amperon, and the three transmission and distribution utilities whose territories hold most of the queue, Oncor, CenterPoint and AEP Texas. Glotfelty told Bloomberg the plan is a field campaign aimed at mayors and county judges: "We want to make sure the economic story gets told."
The economic story has been told. The problem is the polling. A Texas Public Policy Foundation survey of 1,167 likely voters in late August found 54 percent support a local ban on data centers, against 37 percent opposed. That is not a fringe. That is the median Texas voter, in the state that has 474.7 GW of large-load requests in ERCOT's queue, 90 percent of them data centers. The coalition exists because Taylor happened, and Taylor is not an outlier. The Governor paused the permits. The PUC adopted a $50,000-per-megawatt fee. The Legislature's rider asked for water data the industry mostly declined to provide. The field campaign is going to be walking into rooms where the first question is the one Taylor asked, and "jobs" is not an answer to "where does the water come from."
One structural note. The utilities in this coalition are the same ones currently defending 765 kV Permian transmission routes against landowner opposition. A coalition that puts Oncor's name next to QTS's on a mailer to county judges is making the argument that the transmission build-out and the data-center build-out are the same project. They are, and that is exactly what the opposition has been saying.
Also Filed: Two Buildings in Kent County, a Battery in Upton County, and Loan No. 9
Two TDLR registrations dated October 1 describe "Project Hyper – Spur Building 1" and Building 2 on County Road 233 outside Jayton, Kent County: two buildings of 759,262 square feet each at $2.4 billion apiece, construction starting January 13 and January 31, 2027, completion May 25 and June 7, 2029. The filer is Spur DC Owner 1 and 2 LLC; DataCenterDynamics attributes the project to Crusoe, whose three 806,360-square-foot Childress buildings carry the same Project Hyper name and the same $2.4 billion ticket. If that is right, Crusoe's Rolling Plains footprint is now five buildings and about $12 billion across two counties with a combined population under 8,000. No megawatts in the filing. At Childress the comparable is 1.4 GW for three buildings, so the arithmetic is left to the reader.
Linea Energy closed financing on October 1 for Mesa View, a 250 MW / 500 MWh standalone battery in Upton County: a construction-to-term loan, tax-equity bridge and letter-of-credit facility with NORD/LB as coordinating lead arranger and Texas Capital in the syndicate, plus preferred equity from DESRI. COD 2027. Amount undisclosed, which is how you know it closed on terms the lender liked. For scale, ERCOT's own October fact sheet puts installed storage at 21,537 MW. Cleanview counts 18,075 MW actually operating as of this month, so take the ERCOT figure as nameplate on the books rather than batteries discharging tonight.
And an update on last week's Texas Energy Fund item: the Governor's office formally announced Loan No. 9 on Tuesday. Pecos Power Plant LLC, 452 MW in Reeves County, co-sponsored by Mercuria and Continental Resources, COD 2027. Nine in-ERCOT loans now total 5,446 MW. The loan amount still has not been published. Continental's 10-Q shows $164 million contributed against a commitment of up to $257.8 million for its half of the joint venture, which gives you a floor on what the plant costs and nothing on what the state lent. We will keep asking.
What to Watch Next Week
Monday, October 12, 5 p.m. ERCOT's Community-Impact RFI closes. Every project over 25 MW files ownership, water, abatement and on-site generation data with a notarized attestation. ERCOT's report to the PUCT is due on or before December 10. Whether any of it becomes public before the PUC's lawsuit is decided is now a live question.
Around October 14. The Texas Water Development Board's first 30-day enforcement update to the Governor on the water survey, per the September 21 directive. If the PUC's 90-of-377 response rate is the baseline, watch whether the Governor's office treats non-response as a permitting problem.
Thursday, October 15, 9:30 a.m. PUCT open meeting. The agenda is posted. I am listening for any mention of the records suit, §25.194 implementation, and whether the commission says anything about the survey report it is due to deliver by year-end.
Monday, October 19. TCEQ's compliance report to the Governor on the data-center permit halt. This is where we learn whether behind-the-meter gas, including Taylor's, is actually caught.
October 31. Fermi's extended closing deadline with TensorWave on the 222 MW lease. A second extension would say more about Project Matador than the draft EIS does.
Disclaimer: The Grid Report is Barrio Energy's market intelligence product. Nothing here is investment advice, and Andi is not your broker. Links go to primary sources wherever possible; form your own view.
