I went through 4,100+ public records about our region. These 5 raise big questions about the data center projects in El Paso and Santa Teresa.
Body
TL;DR: Two giant data center projects are coming to our border region: Meta's campus in Northeast El Paso and Project Jupiter in Santa Teresa, NM. I found 5 public documents that most people have never seen. They show who judges the permits, what El Paso gave up in taxes, who could pay for a new power plant, whose air got checked, and what a public university agreed to keep quiet. None of them prove anyone broke the law. But they raise questions we should all be asking. Every document is linked so you can read it yourself.
Quick background
- Meta in El Paso. Meta is building a data center campus in Northeast El Paso. On paper, the company is called Wurldwide LLC. El Paso Electric wants to build a new gas power plant, called McCloud, that is linked to this project.
- Project Jupiter in Santa Teresa, NM. A giant data center campus just a few miles from the border. It would make its own power on site, using natural gas. The company asking for the air permit is Yucca Growth Infrastructure (YGI). BorderPlex Digital Assets is one of the developers.
1. The "neutral" judge came from the state's own contractor
Project Jupiter, New Mexico
Before Jupiter's power plant can get its air permit, there is a public hearing. A hearing officer runs it, kind of like a referee. The hearing officer decides what evidence counts and writes a recommendation.
What the documents show:
- The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) has a contract with a private company called Eastern Research Group (ERG). It can pay ERG up to $9.5 million. That is the limit, not what was actually paid.
- Under that contract, ERG helps NMED with permits, air pollution modeling, and expert testimony at hearings.
- In September 2025, NMED added a new job to the same contract. ERG would also supply hearing officers who are "independent and neutral."
- ERG can bill the state $550 an hour for a hearing officer, rising to about $600 by the fourth year. That is ERG's rate, not the officer's pay.
- In July 2026, the officer picked for this hearing wrote that he could not do any hearing officer work until ERG finished his "new service contract."
- The filing also says the hearing was moved up by five weeks. It says a way to get information from the other side (called "discovery") was allowed at first, then taken away.
What happened next: On Aug. 22, one day after this filing, the hearing officer removed himself from the case, "effective immediately." He gave no reason.
What it does NOT show: That the officer was unfair. The filing itself says the records do not prove bias.
Questions:
- Who picked the hearing officer: the state, or ERG?
- Who pays him, and who decides if he gets more cases?
- How can the same company help the agency and also supply the "neutral" judge? What keeps those two jobs apart?
- Did ERG do any other work on this permit?
- Who replaced him, and was the new officer hired the same way?
Read it: Aug. 21 filing with the contract (PDF pages 12 to 19 and 108 to 118) and the Aug. 22 order.
2. Meta's tax break: what El Paso gave, and what it asked for
El Paso, Texas
On Dec. 5, 2023, El Paso City Council approved a tax break deal with Wurldwide LLC (Meta). It covers about 1,039 acres that Meta was buying from the city, north of Stan Roberts Sr. Ave. and west of U.S. 54.
What Meta gets:
- 80% off the city's property taxes on the added value of the land and buildings, and on the equipment inside.
- The break lasts 10 years for each phase, for up to 5 phases. Each phase must cost at least $800 million.
- This covers the city's taxes only.
What Meta promises back:
- 50 full-time jobs. Total. Not 50 per phase. 50 for the whole campus.
- The jobs must pay at least the area's middle (median) wage. The floor is $16.43 an hour.
- The jobs are not due until 4 years after the building deadline. That can be 11 years after the buildings start going up, or later if there are delays.
- The deal says nothing in it shall "require the Company to achieve" the jobs goal. If jobs fall short, the city's only fix is to cut or skip that year's tax break. Tax breaks already given before the jobs deadline are not affected.
- Spending construction money with local El Paso businesses, or with minority- and woman-owned businesses, is up to Meta's "sole discretion." Not doing it does not break the deal.
Other terms that stood out:
- Inspections: The city can inspect at most once a year, with 30 days' notice, at a time Meta picks. Only 2 city workers can go. Meta can make them sign a promise not to talk about what they see.
- Public records: If you ask the city for records about this deal or the project, the city must tell Meta within 2 business days. It must send Meta a copy of your request. Then the city must argue to the Texas Attorney General against releasing anything that counts as Meta's confidential business information.
- Meta can end the deal at any time, for any reason. It is not required to build anything.
- The deal says it is part of a bigger incentive package under a second deal, called a "380 agreement." That deal is not in this document.
What it does NOT show: That Meta broke any of these terms. It also does not show how much tax money the city will give up.
Questions:
- How much city tax money will this break cost each year?
- Why only 50 jobs for a project this big?
- Has the city inspected the site yet? What did it find?
- How many records requests about this project has the city fought?
- What is in the 380 agreement?
Read it: Tax break agreement (PDF pages 3, 10 to 16, and 27 for public records).
3. Judges want El Paso Electric customers protected from a new gas plant's costs
El Paso, Texas
El Paso Electric (EPE) asked Texas to approve McCloud, a 366-megawatt natural gas power plant. Two state judges reviewed the case. In September, they said to approve it only if EPE's other customers are protected from paying to build and run it.
What their Oct. 21, 2026 letter says:
- The protection covers every EPE customer "other than Wurldwide" (Meta).
- Every outside group in the case said that protection was too narrow. That included the City of El Paso and the state office that speaks for home and small business customers.
- The judges agreed to widen it. They wrote that "there could be cost impacts beyond capital and operating costs." But they said the record does not clearly show what those costs are.
- So now they want it to also cover "any other costs shown to be directly related" to the plant.
- The protection would last for the life of the plant, unless and until EPE later proves the plant passes the state's approval test for its Texas customers.
What it does NOT show: This is only a recommendation. The Texas Public Utility Commission makes the final call. It does not show that anyone has been charged.
Questions:
- Will the commission accept the wider protection?
- What "other costs" could show up? Could things like grid upgrades end up on our bills?
- What would EPE have to prove to end the protection?
- If Meta uses less power, or leaves, who pays for the plant then?
Read it: Judges' letter, PUC Docket 59076 (pages 2 and 3).
4. Project Jupiter's air pollution study stops at the border
Santa Teresa, New Mexico
To get its air permit, Jupiter's power company (YGI) ran a computer model. The model estimates how much pollution lands at thousands of spots around the plant, out to about 31 miles (50 km) away.
What the October 2026 filing shows:
- For each grid of spots in the model, the form says the same thing: "Receptors located outside of the United States are not included in this analysis."
- In plain words: the model did not check any spot in Mexico.
- I used the map points in the filing to measure. The spots where the model found the most pollution from the plant are only about 2.5 to 3 miles north of the border. Most of Ciudad Juárez, a city of about 1.5 million people, is inside that 31-mile zone. (This is my own rough math.)
- The company says pollution stays under federal limits at the U.S. spots it checked. At full power, its worst U.S. spot reaches about 87% of the yearly federal limit for fine particle pollution (PM2.5). That counts pollution already in the air.
What it does NOT show: That anyone in Mexico will be harmed. It shows this study did not look. I did not find a separate cross-border study in this filing.
Questions:
- Why does the study stop at the border when the air doesn't?
- Has anyone checked what this plant would add to the air in Juárez?
- Were people in Juárez told about this permit, or asked for comments?
- Did NMED agree to draw the line at the border? Why?
Read it: October 2026 air model filing (PDF page 171; results on pages 180 to 183).
5. NMSU signed a secrecy deal with a Jupiter developer about local water
Las Cruces and Santa Teresa, New Mexico
In February 2025, New Mexico State University signed a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with BorderPlex Digital Assets, one of the companies behind Project Jupiter.
What it says:
- The stated purpose is to support the state water office's study of the brackish (salty) water in the Santa Teresa area. That office is the Office of the State Engineer.
- Each side must keep the other's information secret if it is marked confidential.
- What if a law or court order says NMSU must release BorderPlex's confidential information? NMSU must warn BorderPlex first. If BorderPlex decides to fight the release, NMSU must "provide reasonable aid and assistance."
- The NDA ends after 1 year, but the duty to keep secrets does not. Information can stay protected for up to 5 years after it was shared.
- The PDF says "Draft." But the last page is signed by both sides, in February 2025.
What it does NOT show: That NMSU hid any records, or that any research was changed. The NDA also says some information is not secret, like anything that is already public.
Questions:
- Why does a study for a state agency need a secrecy deal with a private developer?
- Who is paying for this water research?
- Will the water findings be made public? When?
- Has NMSU ever used this clause after a public records request?
Read it: Signed NDA (pages 1 and 2; signatures on page 4).
Why this matters
Put the five together and you get five simple questions:
- Who judges the permits?
- What did El Paso get for its tax break?
- Who pays for the power?
- Whose air gets checked?
- Who gets to see the water research?
These projects are huge. They will shape our air, water, power bills, and taxes for decades. People on both sides of the border deserve clear answers.
I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not saying anyone broke the law. These are public records. I'm sharing what they say and what they leave out. If I got something wrong, tell me and I'll fix it. If you know more, please share.
What would you ask? Has your city council member, county commissioner, or state lawmaker talked to you about any of this?
Wait…there’s more
Data Corpus