What it is
Two analyses of the El Paso and Santa Teresa data center corridor. The water document asks whether the supply surplus covers the announced demand. The grid document asks whether the generation margin covers the announced load. Every input is a public source and every calculation is reproducible with a calculator and the cited documents.
The standing invitation is written into the repository: if a number is wrong, correct it publicly and cite your source.
The findings, stated as ratios
On water, combined demand at full build is 17.9 percent of the supply surplus, and the conclusion flips depending on which definition of supply is used. No public document specifies which definition decision makers applied.
On the grid, combined load is 197 percent of the surplus at record peak. The stated plant size given to commissioners, 700 to 900 MW, does not match the air quality permits at 2,880 MW, and the permitted microgrid is 125 percent the size of the regional utility.
Four readings of the same arithmetic
Each document carries four tabs over identical numbers: residents in plain language, journalists with sourced tables and a full bibliography, technical with the full equations and step by step values, and a Spanish summary. The audience changes, the arithmetic does not.
In the code
| Document | Question | Key Finding |
|----------|----------|-------------|
| Water Analysis | Is there enough water? | DC demand = 17.9% of supply
surplus. Conclusion flips depending on which supply definition is used.
No public document specifies which one decision-makers used. |
| Grid Analysis | Is there enough power? | DC load = 197% of grid surplus.
Stated power plant size (700-900 MW) does not match air quality permits
(2,880 MW). Permitted microgrid is 125% the size of the regional utility. |Worth quoting because of what it does not do. Neither finding is stated as a verdict: the water row reports a ratio and then says the conclusion depends on a definition nobody published, and the grid row reports a ratio and a discrepancy between two public filings rather than an accusation about why they differ. That restraint is what makes the document usable by a reporter and a commissioner at the same time, and it is why the arithmetic is laid out step by step in a technical tab, so disagreement has to be with a specific number rather than with the conclusion.
How this differs from the ordinary version
Every number has a source and a step
The technical tab carries the equations and the input values, so a disagreement has to name the line it disagrees with. That is a much harder document to dismiss than a position paper.
It reports the ambiguity instead of resolving it
The water conclusion genuinely depends on which supply definition is used, and the document says so rather than picking the one that makes the better headline. Finding that no public record specifies the definition is itself the result.
Written four ways on purpose
A resident, a reporter, an engineer and a Spanish speaking neighbour get the same arithmetic at the register they read in. In a bilingual region that is not an accessibility feature, it is the difference between a document that circulates and one that does not.
In the field
A local argument that needed local numbers
The corridor is being approved facility by facility while the cumulative question goes unasked in public. Publishing the arithmetic, with sources, is the cheapest way to move the conversation from whether people are worried to whether a specific number is right.
Questions
- Is this against data centers?
- No. It is two ratios computed from public records, with the ambiguity in the water figure reported rather than resolved, and a standing request that any wrong number be corrected publicly with a source.
- Can the numbers be checked?
- Yes, that is the design. Every input is a cited public source and the technical tab shows the equations and step by step values.